Skip to main content

Full text of "Hearing"

See other formats


3 1223 03273 6499 

San Francisco Public Library 


100 L3Kii Street, 5lh Floor 
6an Francisco, CA 941 02 


■ Not to be taken from the Library 




JUM - 2 1997 






ROOM 113 


MONDAY, MAY 12, 1997 
2:03 P.M. 


Reported by 




ROOM 113 


MONDAY, MAY 12, 1997 
2:03 P.M. 

Evelyn J. Mizak 
Shorthand Reporter 

3 1223 03273 6499 










GREG SCHMIDT, Executive Officer 

PAT WEBB, Committee Secretary 

NANCY MICHEL, Consultant on Governor's Appointments 


KEITH P. BISHOP, Commissioner 
Department of Corporations 

JAMES W. BRUNER, JR., Attorney 
Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliff 

LILLIAN JOSHUA, Complainant 

D. STEVEN BLAKE, Attorney 
Downey, Brand, Seymour & Rohwer 


SALLY R. REED, Director 
Department of Motor Vehicles 


Consumers for Auto Reliability and Safety 

SPIKE HELMICK, Commissioner 
California Highway Patrol 

Board of Governors 
California Community Colleges 

Board of Governors 
California Community Colleges 

4 49383 SFPL: ECONO JRS 
75 SFPL 06/06/03 16 



MARINA M. TSE, Member 
State Board of Eduation 



Proceedings 1 

Governor's Appointees: 

KEITH P. BISHOP, Commissioner 

Department of Corporations 1 

Witness in Opposition: 

LILLIAN JOSHUA, Complainant 1 

Questions by CHAIRMAN LOCKYER re: 

Interactions with Department 

of Corporations 4 

Questions by SENATOR BRULTE re: 

Familiarity with Changes in 

Department since BISHOP'S Tenure 5 

Witnesses in Support: 

JIM BRUNER, Attorney 

Orrick, Herrington & Sutclif fe 6 

Questions by CHAIRMAN LOCKYER re: 

DOC's Bill to Conform to National 

Markets Act 7 

Questions by SENATOR BRULTE re: 

Familiarity with Changes in 

Department under BISHOP' s Tenure 8 

Is Department Moving in 

Right Direction 8 


Downey, Brand, Seymour & Rohwer 9 

Questions by SENATOR BRULTE re: 

Title with State Bar Association 11 

Is Department Moving in 

Right Direction 11 

Witness in Opposition: 

JO JOSHUA GODFREY, Complainant 12 

statements by CHAIRMAN LOCKYER re: 

Committee Will Request that Governor 

Withdraw Appointment and then Resubmit 13 

Need to Respond to Material Modification 
Requests that Were Granted in Past 14 

Options for Restructuring DOC 14 

Discussion on Withdrawing and Resubmitting 

Appointment 15 

SALLY R. REED, Director 

Department of Motor Vehicles 18 

Background and Experience 18 

Questions by SENATOR HUGHES re: 

SB 1717 (Solis) of '96, which Establishes 

Procedures for Mailed Requests for Extension 

of Driver ' s Licenses 20 

Use of Public Service Announcements 21 

Questions by SENATOR AYALA re: 

Major Risks Involved in Implementing 

Warner Group ' s Rcommendations 22 

Polaroid Contract Problems 24 

Questions by CHAIRMAN LOCKYER re: 

Contemplated Budget Deficit 25 

Questions by SENATOR LEWIS re: 

Revenues Received Annually from 

Driver ' s Licenses 27 

Revenues from Vehicle Registration 

Fees 28 

Witnesses in Support: 


Consumers for Auto Reliability and Safety 28 

SPIKE HELMICK, Commissioner 

California Highway Patrol 29 


Questions by CHAIRMAN LOCKYER re: 

DMV's Computer Problem 30 

Motion to Confirm 31 

Committee Action 31 


Board of Governors 

California Community Colleges 32 

Background and Experience 32 

Questions by SENATOR HUGHES re: 

Role of Board of Governors Vs. Local 

Boards of Trustees 34 

Relationship of Board with State Board 

of Education to Prepare K-12 Students 35 

Student Fees 3 6 

Motion to Confirm 3 8 

Questions by SENATOR HUGHES re: 

Role of Community Colleges in 

Implementing Welfare Reform 38 

Committee Action 40 


Board of Governors 

California Community Colleges 41 

Introduction and Support by 


Background and Experience 41 

Questions by SENATOR HUGHES re: 

Economic Development for Inner Cities and 
Prospective Entreprenuers 42 

Questions by SENATOR AYALA re: 

Student Fees 44 

Motion to Confirm 4 5 

Committee Action 45 


MARINA M. TSE, Member 

State Board of Education 46 

Motion to Confirm 46 

Committee Action 46 

Termination of Proceedings 46 

Certificate of Reporter 47 


CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: We'll take up gubernatorial 
appointees where we left off, with Mr. Bishop. He has provided 
a rather lengthy response to some of the questions we posed. We 
haven't yet had an opportunity to go through his response, and 
the response to the response, and that sort of thing. 

That will mean we can't go to a vote today on 
that appointment, but we want to make sure to conclude taking 
any testimony. 

So, if there's anyone present that would wish to 
comment either for or against the confirmation of Mr. Bishop, I 
welcome them forward. If there isn't anyone, then we'll move 

MS. JOSHUA: Good afternoon. My name is Lillian 
Joshua. I've come to share my experiences with you. 

The Department of Corporations is failing in its 
regulatory function, and my family's experience illustrates 
that. And my own personal experience with SIGNA Health Care 
will illustrate how consumers are being abused, and how the 
Department of Corporations is turning a blind eye. 

My experience with SIGNA began with the abuse of 
my parents, and in turn, they perpetrated this abuse against 
every member of my family. When I was sick and needed a 
physician, they would send me out on appointment, and I would be 
humiliated because most often, the physician where they sent me 
was not expecting me. 

As a result, SIGNA sent me a letter saying that I 

could choose my own physician and they would pay for the medical 
care. They did this once, and they didn't pay for the medical 
care, and I was threatened by collection agencies that I'd be 
sued if I didn't pay the bill. 

SIGNA also said that I could choose a doctor of 
my choice in my place of residence, which is Santa Barbara, and 
this never happened. SIGNA assigned me a doctor in Santa 
Barbara, but when I was sick, and wanted to make an appointment, 
and I called the doctor, she never returned my calls. And when 
we contacted the doctor's office, they said that they didn't 
work with SIGNA any more because SIGNA wouldn't make referrals 
when specialists were needed. 

Last year, I needed specialty care. And during 
the procedure, the doctor said that I had needed a biopsy. He 
had to stop in the middle of my treatment and get authorization 
from SIGNA to continue. The doctor stated that the two 
procedures were linked, and that he had never been expected to 
perform medicine in this way before. 

After this procedure, when I complained to the 
Department of Corporations about this, SIGNA denied the 
accusations and responded that doctor was mistaken. So, they 
said that the doctor really didn't say this, that he made a 
mistake. And since then, the physician has come forth to his 
Senator's office in Santa Barbara and stated that he performed 
the biopsy without an authorization, and that my account of the 
incident was correct. 

And the physician also said that every 90 days 
after the biopsy that I needed to go back and keep getting 

checked every 90 days because this is a pre-cancerous condition. 
And SIGNA said that if I needed this specialty care, I had to go 
through my primary physician to be make sure that I needed it. 

And they/ in turn, assigned me to a primary 
physician that's located over an hour away from my house, and 
it's not even in my county. 

I am a student. I go to UC Santa Barbara, and I 
don't have transportation. It's just not a viable option. 

And the Department, instead of making things 
better, the person at SIGNA responsible for harassing me and not 
letting me get treatment, they told her to call me again, even 
though I advised him that this is the woman who was responsible 
for all my problems. 

And I just wanted to say that my case is just one 
of many. There's been another person we just found out recently 
that has come forward to the Santa Barbara Senator that SIGNA 
has been doing the same things to. 

Therefore, I urge that this department needs some 
kind of investigative body to see what's been going on. I think 
that to allow HMOs to continue to believe that they can abuse 
consumers without accountability is wrong. 

And because of all these things that have 
happened, I feel like I have been forced to get medical 
treatment from the Student Health Center on campus. I have been 
paying all may bills for my treatment and my medication for 
several years. 

And my question to you is, why should I have to 
do all this when I have medical insurance? And why should I 

have to find my own medical care on campus instead of receiving 
the proper medical care that I thought I was paying for? 

In closing, I feel that this is a profit driven 
system, and this profit driven system is not the way to deliver 
medical treatment to innocent and trusting human beings. 

And I think that California needs to lead the way 
to change in order to protect its citizens. And the abusers are 
affecting every generation of Americans, and I think it needs to 
change before we step into the 21st Century. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Did you have any interactions 
with the Department, separate from the Senator and the various 
plans? Did you complain to the Department about the problems? 

MS. JOSHUA: I've written to the Department 
before, and I've just dealt with SIGNA. There's this one lady 
that keeps calling me and harassing me throughout my years at 
Santa Barbara. And I keep telling her -- when she called me, I 
told her that I didn't want to talk to her and not to contact me 
in that way anymore, and she just keeps calling me. She called 
me the other day, for example. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Your personal experiences are 
with SIGNA mostly? 

MS. JOSHUA: And the Department of Corporations, 
because when I've had my problems with SIGNA, I've written to 
the Department of Corporations, and nothing seems to get done 
about it. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Did you ever hear back from 

MS. JOSHUA: I did. My mom has all my 

correspondence and all my letters. But it's just like a 
frustrating, ongoing battle, it seems. It's continued since 
I've been at school, four years. 

SENATOR BRULTE: Your problem, again, about four 
years ago, are you familiar with any of the changes Mr. Bishop 
has made since he's been in his temporary capacity? 

MS. JOSHUA: No, I haven't. I admit, I'm not 
familiar with those. I'm just basically going to school right 
now and trying to get my education and all I'm dealing with. 

And my main problems are that when I'm sick, I 
can't get medical treatment. So, that's my main 

SENATOR BRULTE: I'm sorry I missed first part of 
your testimony. 

You're upset with your current provider, but are 
you here to oppose Mr. Bishop's confirmation? 

MS. JOSHUA: Uh-huh. 

SENATOR BRULTE: Even though you're unaware of 
any of the changes he has made? 

MS. JOSHUA: My mom's been talking to me about it 
because I don't have time to come here and, like, read up on all 
this, and come to these hearings. So, my mom's been telling me, 
like, just what's been going on. 

Just my correspondence with SIGNA and the 
Department. That's what I'm talking about. 



MS. JOSHUA: Thank you. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Is there anyone else? 

MR. BRUNER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Senators. 
I'm Jim Bruner with the Orrick, Herrington and Sutcliffe law 

I'm here to support Mr. Bishop's confirmation. 
I'm pleased to be here to do so. 

Over the years, we've worked with -- and I 
personally have worked with Corporations Commissioners, dating 
back to Willie Barnes, Franklin Tom, Christine Bender, Gary 
Mendoza, and now Mr. Bishop. 

I've served with him on the Senate Commission on 
Corporate Governance, Shareholders Rights and Securities 
Transactions, and I appreciate your appointing me to that 
Commission two or three years ago. 

In working with Mr. Bishop on a number of issues, 
it's become clear that he's highly qualified to serve as the 
Corporations Commissioner and continue serving in that regard. 
He's approachable, accessible, and we found him to be an honest 
regulator. We may not always agree with his positions or 
approach to certain problems, to certain policies, or to 
regulatory matters, but we found him to be intellectually honest 
and even handed. 

I work generally with the Commissioner on matters 
affecting securities firms, investment companies or mutual 
funds, and found him to be one that's tackled tough problems in 
a forthright manner, and he's gained reputation and the respect 
nationwide for his ability to debate and provide foundation for 
his positions on matters where there's been a legitimate 

difference on issues before the Department. 

I think significantly in this period in which 
we've had a national markets act passed by Congress, and states 
are being called upon to conform their statutes to the national 
act to protect both consumers and those in the marketplace/ that 
he's done a fair job in that regard. He has a bill before the 
Legislature now to provide conformity to the new federal 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Which bill do you mean? 

MR. BRUNER: It's AB 721, Senator, which is the 
conformity bill. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Who's the author? 

MR. BRUNER: It's Mr. Firestone. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: What does this conform to? 

MR. BRUNER: The National Markets Act that was 
passed by Congress last year that provided for moving forward 
with a new set of regulation over mutual fund companies, for 
instance. There's now a national standard for compliance with 
state statutes and for offerings of mutual funds. 

And heretofore, that's been regulated state by 
state, with a variety of states taking a different approach. 

In that regard, we've worked with Commissioner 
Bishop, and we've found that he's not only acting diligently, 
he's ahead of a number of states in this regard, and he's 
coordinated his action with the National Association of 
Securities Commissioners, which I think is helpful to provide 
some type of coordination of a national standard. 

On behalf of our firm and our clients, it's my 


estimation that there's a public benefit from consistent and 
fair regulation. Consumers and businesses need to know what the 
rules are and how they're being applied. Commissioner Bishop 
has been accessible, fair, and clear in this regard. 

I'd be glad to answer questions. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Questions from Members? 

Thank you. 

SENATOR BRULTE: Let me ask, are you familiar 
with some of the changes Mr. Bishop has instituted, some of the 
staff he's hired to put an end to some of the backlogs? 

MR. BRUNER: Well, I am familiar with some, 
especially on the securities side, far more so than on the 
health care service side. In fact, I'm not tremendously 
familiar with the health care service side. 

I have followed his confirmation process, and I 
must say, on the securities side, he's hired good people; he's 
retained good people within the Department. They're 
responsive . 

I think he's the type of person that is trying to 
do the best he can, certainly, with a high intellect and 
comprehensive program to address these problems. 

SENATOR BRULTE: If you look at the Department 
prior to his tenure and where it is currently, would you say 
it's moving in the right direction? 

MR. BRUNER: I don't think there's any doubt that 
it's moving in the right direction. 

I really must say in my own personal estimation 
as a consumer on the health care side, it's a very, very 

difficult time, whether you're a consumer, whether you're a 
regulator, whether you're, I presume, a health care provider. 
We're going through really a revolution in the way our services 
are delivered, and I would have to say that managing that system 
is a tall order. 

I think he is moving in the right 



Is there anyone else? Yes, sir. 

MR. BLAKE: My name is Steven Blake, and I'm 
pleased that you're willing to receive comments. 

I'm a lawyer, but I consider myself more of a 
member of the public. I'm not a lobbyist. I'm not here on 
behalf of any clients. 

I've been a business lawyer for about 2 6 years. 
I've been involved with County and State Bar matters, 
substantive law issues and subject matter. 

Presently I am serving as co-chair of the 
Corporations Commission of the Business Law Section of the State 
Bar. And I am a former member of the Financial Institutions 
Committee of the Business Law Section of the State Bar, and an 
active member of the Board, and the Program Chair, and so forth, 
of local bar associations. 

I've taught business law courses to lawyers — 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: What do you want to tell us 
about — 

MR. BLAKE: I want to tell them about Mr. Bishop 


should be confirmed as Commissioner, because I can say that his 
experience as a practitioner before he came to public service, 
his forthcomingness, if there is such a word, with respect to 
the issues that I think are facing the small business people in 
California, the ability to readily raise capital, to document 
their transactions, and to grow their businesses, I think, would 
benefit from his approach. 

Mr. Bishop has, in the short tenure, made a 
review of the some of the regulations under which business 
people in California must operate. He's rationalized some of 
them to modern practice. He has streamlined a number. He has 
relieved small business people of some really nutty restrictions 
from all the regulations. When stock was issued many years ago 
when the rules were different, wind up with restrictions that 
the same transaction today wouldn't have. He has by rule helped 
people out of those circumstances. 

I believe that his interest in making California 
a better place for business formation is one of the reasons you 
should confirm his appointment. 

I can say that, having been around State Bar 
substantive committees for about eight years, Mr. Bishop is the 
only Commissioner who ever bothered to send a senior staff 
person or show up himself to find out what practitioners in the 
business thought needed to be done to promote capital formation 
and the growing of businesses as California corporations. 

You may not realize that there's quite an 
industry of reincorporating California businesses in other 
states because of many of the restrictions that California's law 


and its regulatory, perceived regulatory web present to people. 

Mr. Bishop has brought clarity to those rules and 
has made proposals that I think will streamline the process and 
ensure California's first place in the equity market. 

I ' d be glad to answer any questions, particularly 
general ones. 

SENATOR BRULTE: What was your title with the 
State Bar Association? 

MR. BLAKE: I have to say, make clear I'm here on 
my own behalf, not the State Bar by any means. But I'm co-chair 
of the Corporations Committee of the Business Law Section. Our 
purview, or special interest, if you will, is matters affecting 
corporations law, and securities, and practitioners and their 
clients in that regard. 

SENATOR BRULTE: Again, looking at the Department 
prior to Mr. Bishop's tenure and where it is today, is he moving 
this Department in the right direction? 

MR. BLAKE: I think it is for a couple of reasons 
I mentioned: rule making, making senior staff available and 
with ears open. And he has made an effort, I think, to reach 
out to business lawyers in general to let them know that the 
Commissioner's office is available for their clients who want to 
do business in California. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Thank you, sir. 

MR. BLAKE: Thank you. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Is there anyone else who'd 
wish to comment at all? Yes, please. 

Did you have a chance to talk with us last week? 


MS. GODFREY: Yes, I did. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Is there something new? 

MS. GODFREY: Well, what I shared with you last 
week what had gone on in my life, I'd like to share with you 
what goes on inside this department today. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: This is additional, something 



MS. GODFREY: Yes, I believe. 

My HMO when they — 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: You'd better identify yourself 

MS. GODFREY: Excuse me. My name is Jo Joshua 


My HMO, with what it did to me, it has promised 
to give me outside health care. And also, when I spoke with the 
Department of Corporations' representative on Good Friday, they 
said that, based on what SIGNA — that SIGNA had made 
misrepresentations to the Department of Corporations about 
giving our family ongoing care. And that based on this, that 
she was even going to get involved in this issue. 

I have not seen a doctor for eight months. I'm 
supposed to have blood tests every 90 days. They paid for me to 
be seen by an outside oncologist for two years. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: I'm sorry, but you've told us 
before the problems you have with the HMO. 

MS. GODFREY: Right. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Let's move on the to the 
Department, not the HMO. 



MS. GODFREY: The Department said that it would 
intervene in this situation. I mean, if someone comes along and 
wrecks someone's life -- 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Stay with the Department, 
please. Who did you communicate with in the Department? What 
did they say to you? 

MS. GODFREY: Mr. Joe Parra. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: That was how long ago? 

MS. GODFREY: And also Senator Knight 
communicated with him as well. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Is this since last Monday? 

MS. GODFREY: This was — it's been going on for 
three weeks, but I haven't heard anything from them. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Well, we've got a response. I 
don't know if in the response from Mr. Bishop it is specific to 
the different cases that we heard about here, but we'll ask that 
they respond specifically. 

MS. GODFREY: All right, thank you. 


Anyone else that wanted to comment? 

Mr. Bishop, do you want to come up? Good 

MR. BISHOP: Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: I think we'll have another 
opportunity to have you available for interviews, I hope. 

I think I'm going to recommend to the Governor 
that they withdraw the appointment for the time and resubmit it. 
The May 23rd deadline isn't going to work. I'm going to have to 


vote no if that deadline is rigid. 

So, the only way to avoid that problem, frankly, 
is if we get the Governor withdraw it and then resubmit it in a 
month, or something, so that we'll have an adequate opportunity 
to spend time on these issues. 

Meanwhile, the only new thing, and you may have 
received this yourself, Jamie Court, again, with Consumers for 
Quality Care, comments on the recent announcement that Molina 
Medical would wish to merge with Universal, and Kaiser with 
Group Health of Puget Sound. 

Have you gotten these? 

MR. BISHOP: I have not seen that. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: I notice in reading through 
them, it indicates that you had approved material modifications 
for both companies that allowed them to expand during the 
previous year, even though Molina had been disallowed by the 
federal government, and there were other problems with 
Universal . 

I want to only make sure to get this in our work 
loop so that you can make sure to respond to some of the issues 
raised, and to learn a little more about the material 
modifications that were already granted during the last year. 

It's my understanding that at least one of the 
various options for restructuring of the Department of 
Corporations might include spinning off some of your functions 
that are business related functions to other departments or 
offices or agencies, and having you wind up being the Czar of 



If that's a possibility, I want some time to 
think about that before we do it, because there's been nothing 
but unanimous commendation for the business side of your 
Department's activities, and the criticism has all been in the 
HMO domain. If that's what you're going to be doing, I want to 
find that out before we confirm. 

MR. BISHOP: Okay. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: So, we've got your responses 
from the previous week. We just need some time to go through 

We'll reschedule it again for next Monday, if 
that's possible. But subject to hearing from the administration 
on a timetable, it may not be necessary, if they can take the 
nomination back for a time. 

SENATOR BRULTE: Would that start the year clock 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: No, it's like stop the clock 
on the last night of the Legislature. It stops the clock, but 
it starts again when they resubmit. 

I'm just afraid that by May 23rd, we're not going 
to be able to -- it holds the deadline -- we're not going to be 
able to get — 

SENATOR BRULTE: Would it be your intent. 
Senator, to keep Mr. Bishop at the Department, working, during 
that period of time? 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Yes. It doesn't change his 
work. It just stops the confirmation process. 

It's not an exception. They've done these sort 


of things before. 

SENATOR BRULTE: Some of us like the changes Mr. 
Bishop is making. I don't want to send any signals to anyone in 
the world that we ought to undo what he's trying to do, because 
he's taking this in the right direction. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Well, I agree there are 

The May Revise does not include any augmentation 
of the oversight budget, the enforcement budget. The Governor 
found an opportunity to spend a lot of money on a lot of other 
things, but no change in the HMO regulatory budget. That's a 
mistake, and that's one of many. Plus, how is this all going to 

Frankly, I want to find out those things before 
we confirm. 

If somebody wants to push a deadline, I'm a no 
vote. I'm happy to do that if it accommodates somebody's 

So, let's get some responses if we could to 

MR. BISHOP: Okay. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: I'll have staff check in with 
whoever you designate to understand the material modifications 
or approvals of change that were granted in the past. 

MR. BISHOP: Okay. 

SENATOR HUGHES: I have a question on procedure, 
just because I don't know it. 

If he is resubmitted by the Governor, he's due to 


be reappointed by the 23rd. Say the Governor does not bother to 
resubmit him until in 20th, then does he have a -- 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: He has to pull the name back, 
and it holds the year deadline. Then, when we're ready to go, 
they resubmit it, and we have a hearing; we have a vote. I 
mean, it happens real fast. 

MS. MICHEL: At this point he has eleven days. 


MS. MICHEL: If the Governor were to pull his 
name today and resubmit it two weeks from now, he would still 
have eleven days. 

SENATOR HUGHES: That's what I wanted to know. 
Thank you. You answered my question. 

MR. BISHOP: We'll work on those responses. 


SENATOR BRULTE: Senator, is it possible to ask 
Consumers for Quality Care a question? 

MS. MICHEL: He's not here. He couldn't fly up 
from L.A., but he'll be here next time when we do it. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: We'll have him available when 
we've got more information. 

Thank you. 

MR. BISHOP: Thank you. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Moving along to appointees, I 
suggest we do Ms. Reed next, DMV, if that's agreeable with 
Members . 

Come on up. 

Good afternoon. 


MS. REED: Good afternoon, Senator. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: It's customary, if you'd like 
to start with any kind of cominents about yourself or your 
professional experiences, or this particular job, those are 
welcome . 

MS. REED: Thank you. Senator. I do have just 
some very short comments. I'll keep them very brief. 

I came to the Department of Motor Vehicles after 
25 years of experience in government, 9 years in city 
government, 15 years in county government. 

I've spent one year learning a lot about state 
government. I still have more to learn, but I've been very 
impressed with the quality of the department that I've been 
asked to head. 

In my 25 years in government, I tried to stand 
for three things: integrity in government, fiscal 
responsibility, and respect for the individual employees who 
provide public service. 

As your Director of DMV, I have sought to improve 
customer service, working with the field offices as well as 
those headquartered here in Sacramento, to assure that we do the 
best job possible with the resources we have. I've tried to 
stress attention to the customer who comes into our field 
offices, the individual customer, and also the business 
customer, the trucking industry, and so on. 

I've also striven to move the Department toward a 
bias for action, and that's difficult in a department so heavily 
regulated and dealing with so many complex issues. We have 


tried to move toward becoming more action oriented. We 
reorganized the Department along functional lines. We have 
worked to be sure that we provide as much attention as possible 
to the mission of the Department, and the mission as it changes 
through legislation passed in this body, which changes our 
responsibility each year. 

I've worked hard to be sure the Department 
performs at its very peak level. I believe that means giving 
every employee the maximum support that we can, assuring that 
our employees are trained. Working to be sure that we provide 
them the tools -- simple things like manuals, more complicated 
things like the equipment that they need to do their job. 

After 25 years' experience in government, I come 
to you as someone who believes very much in public service, who 
is challenged by the responsibilities of the Department of Motor 
Vehicles. I am working hard to make it a better department. It 
was a good department when I got there; I'd like to leave it a 
little better when I'm finished. 

I'm available to answer any questions you may 
have on the challenges I've faced in the past year, or other 
challenges that I may face in the future. 

Thank you. 


Senator Hughes. 

SENATOR HUGHES: Yes, very nice to meet you. 

I'd just like to ask you about a letter that 
Senator Soils sent you regarding her bill, SB 1717, which 
Governor Wilson signed on September 14th, '96. 


MS. REED: Yes, ma'am. 

SENATOR HUGHES: I'd like to know what your reply 
is about the fact that this bill, in the words of the bill, "on 
or before July 1, '97, the Department had to establish a 
procedure for receiving the mailed requests for extension of 
persons' driver's license as described in this section." 

I don't know, will you have this procedure in 
place for July 1, and are you notifying people? 

MS. REED: Yes, Senator, we will have the 
procedure in place by that time. We did respond in December to 
the Senator's letter. Unfortunately, perhaps -- or maybe it was 
January -- I think it must have gotten lost. We did provide 
another copy of that. 

We are preparing to make that process by mail 
available, as the bill specifies, and in the timeframe 

The Senator expresses some concern that perhaps 
we should do that through regulation. Our attorneys advise that 
we have statutory authority to do it without regulation, so we 
don't see that necessity. 

We have initiated — we have forwarded another 
response to the Senator, and we'll work with her on any kind of 
notification that she would like to see. We had planned to 
simply include it in the regular notice that they get on the 
expiration time. But if more notice is required, we'll work 
with her on that. 

SENATOR HUGHES: I would imagine a lot of people 
don't know about this. Even though I voted for bill, I didn't 


know about this procedure. 

And the thing that concerns Senator Solis is the 
fact that constituents will be standing in long lines and 
waiting, and just crowding the DMV offices, and they should stay 
home and just wait. 

When you talk about mail, you said that you 
responded to the Senator back in September or sometime like 
that, and evidently she didn't get her mail, either. 

What's going to happen with all of these people 
who are going to just invade your offices, and just crowd it up, 
and make your employees more tense and upset because they wonder 
how they're going to handle this volume? Are you going to have 
any public service announcements or anything like that to ease 
the flow of people coming to DMV? 

MS. REED: We will certainly look at all of those 
options and work with her staff on that, and yours if you would 

People do actually look for this particular 
notice, because for them, it is critical to get that extension. 
And they do have to bring it with them when they come into the 

But we are certainly willing, if it looks like it 
would be effective, to use public service announcements or any 
tool to let people know. 

SENATOR HUGHES: I would strongly urge you to do 
that. I haven't even discussed this with Senator Solis, but, 
you know, I know that people get really up-tight when they see 
that their licenses are going to expire, and they don't want to 


be caught driving without a license that's updated. 

So I think that you would save yourself a lot of 
trouble and a lot of work if you had some sort of announcement 
in that regard. 

I will tell Senator Solis that you have agreed? 

MS. REED: Certainly. 

SENATOR HUGHES: Is that correct? 

MS. REED: We will work on that, absolutely. 


SENATOR LEWIS: Senator Ayala. 

SENATOR AYALA: Yes, Ms. Reed, what is a major 
risk involved in the implementation of the Warner Group's 
recommendations? And how will you as Director of the Department 
be able to minimize those risks. 

MS. REED: It's a very good question. Senator. 

The Warner Group made a series of recommendations 
following their analysis of the experience the Department had 
with the Tandem computers. At the heart of their 
recommendations were that we still needed to move forward to 
modernize the systems available in the Department, that we 
needed to do so in specific increments, and they proposed 
working through both the system components in terms of the data 
base, and also the software components of the system in a fairly 
orderly fashion, moving toward eventual replacement of the 
system, but as I say, in increments. 

The greatest risk, I think, is that our system — 
this will sound like a contradiction -- but it is at the same 
time a very good system that, over the years, has served us 


well, and maybe better than most systems of its age. And at the 
same time, very much out dated. 

We recently, based on the Warner Group's 
recommendation, issued two requests for proposals. One is 
called KSCS and one is called Untangling. They are the two 
major, though small in numbers by comparison to the past, 
computer system efforts that were in our budget last year, 
thanks to the Legislature's approval and the Governor's 
approval . 

In both cases, the vendor -- we had single vendor 
respond, and in both cases, the cost to move forward as the 
Warner Group had recommended, was far exceeded by the specific 
proposals that we got. And the proposals did not accomplish 
everything the Warner Group had recommended. 

I raise that as the greatest risk, because even 
with the Warner Group's careful analysis, and, I think, very 
cautious approach, we continue to find -- and perhaps it's in 
part due to the problems with Year 2000 and other legacy system 
problems and the demand out there -- that when vendors look at 
our system, and come in and try to help us move it forward, what 
they come back to us with are higher price tags, and only a 
portion of the work being done that we've asked for. 

So, that continues to be the greatest challenge. 
Our system is a mystery. In some ways, I think people 
underestimate it. While it's extremely complex, and it takes us 
far too long to implement legislation that you folks pass, it 
works steadily, and it's kind of a work horse. And replacing it 
is going to be difficult, because when they get in and look at 


it/ they tell us the price tag is always much higher, and the 
effectiveness of what they can do far less than we'd expected. 

SENATOR AYALA: Is the Polaroid contract problems 
that we had a couple years ago, is that behind us or still with 

MS. REED: It's behind us, I think, in a sense, 
in the sense that we've had numerous rounds of negotiation with 
all the parties involved, both Polaroid and MBSI. 

We are moving on a path now that, while it's 
probably not satisfactory to Polaroid in a way, it is the only 
course, I think, everyone would agree. 

We are moving forward with a new RFP process, 
which is what MBSI sought to see us do. But at the same time, 
there is an appeal before the Appellate Court regarding our 
Polaroid contract, which we expect to see resolved in about 

If the Appellate Court rules in Polaroid's favor, 
we have a binding contract that was signed 18 months, two years 
ago. If they rule against us, then the RFP will have been made 
available to all the vendors. We will have been able to review 
it, and we should be able to expeditiously award a new contract. 

Litigation on these contracts has happened in 
this Department, as I recall, the last several times it's been 
bid, and is happening all around the country. So, I don't know 
that our problems are over, but at this point I think our course 
is one that is accepted by everyone as the only one we can take 
for now. 

SENATOR AYALA: Thank you. 


CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: I'm sorry I was interrupted a 
bit/ but I wanted to make sure to ask or learn from you what 
thoughts you might have with respect to the contemplated budget 

It's my understanding that rather than the 
balance projected last year of 25 million-plus, it's more like 
50 million in the hole. 

What's happening, and what can we do about all 

MS. REED: Well, there are huge structural 
deficits in the MVA, in the Motor Vehicle Account, that are a 
product of a number of things. The revenues to the account do 
not grow with inflation, while the value of the vehicle reflects 
the dollars that we collect and send to cities and counties. 
The fixed amount that we collect on registration for the MVA 
doesn't grow with increased costs, nor do our driver's license 

Our costs grow, although they've grown slowly in 
state service with employee salary increases being rare, but our 
costs do grow. The demand for our services grow every year. 
And we have a number of programs within the MVA that are not 
traditional kind of traffic-transportation programs in the 
normal sense. 

We have looked at all sorts of solutions to that. 
The one that seems to come most readily to people's minds is 
increase in the registration fee, putting a dollar on that, a 
couple of dollars on that. I've heard that actually bounced 
around to solve almost every problem in state government. It's 


extremely popular. 

As you know, the Governor has proposed some 
revamping of the driver's license fee. Philosophically, that is 
a very highly subsidized service we provide at the Department. 
It costs us far, far more to provide a driver's license to an 
individual than they pay to get it. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: What are those numbers? 

MS. REED: I didn't bring them all with me, but 
as I recall, it's something like $60 or $70 the first time. 
That's when they take the picture and give you the test. You 
pay 12, I believe. 

And it's less, of course, if you deal with us by 
mail, but it ranges. But in every case, it's a heavy subsidy. 

So we put forward some proposals, and the 
Governor has included those in his budget, to significantly 
increase that fee, but to try to include it in a way that the 
penalty falls primarily, not exclusively, on the person who 
keeps coming back to us for service. The person who has their 
license suspended or whatever. Probably those people are more 
willing to pay us to get their license back, and we're spending 
a lot more to service those individuals. So, I think that's a 
piece of it. 

But fundamentally, I think, we're going to have 
look at something that will provide revenue at some point when 
we know all the implications of 650 and everything, that will 
provide some growth in that revenue stream over time, and 
frankly, containing the uses of those dollars to services like 
the Highway Patrol, and hopefully our department, so that we can 


bring in the money and match those up so that there's some 
chance of that staying in balance over time. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: And those might be realizable 
during these next few months. 

MS. REED: I know that the Governor's Office is 
working hard on some long-range solutions, and we've heard that, 
frankly, from all the legislative committees in no unconcern 
terms . 

My concern is this: 650 's implementation, and 
what it's going to do to registration revenues is something we 
will not know in the next few months. I wish we would. It will 
be some time before we see how people react to that insurance 
requirement. And we made, at one time, some very significant 
revenue projections based on that. 

I'm hopeful that won't happen, but it's very hard 
to tell, because it's a product both of how people react and 
what the value of their vehicles happens to be, and how that 
hits the revenue stream. 

So, I think we'll have a lot of open questions, 
but I think we need to make progress. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Is there anyone present who'd 
wish to comment for or against? 

SENATOR LEWIS: I was intrigued by what you said 
about what the cost of process for driver's licenses are. 

How much revenue do we receive annually from 
driver's license? 

MS. REED: It's in my budget folder. I don't 
have it right here with me. 


CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: This says -- go ahead, it 
doesn't say. 

MS. REED: I'm thinking it's under 50 million, 
but I really want to get that number to you, because I have a 
whole file of budget stuff that I didn't bring over here. 

SENATOR LEWIS: Do you have an approximation of 
how much we take in annually from vehicle license fees? 

MS. REED: The vehicle license, at budget, the 
money we bring into the Department is 5.5 billion. Of that, 
over 3 billion of it, almost 4 billion of it, goes to local 
government, and that's the big ticket on your registration. 
That's what is the replacement for property tax, really. 

The $27, I think, is about a billion, billion and 
a half. 

We bring in a lot of money with our very good 
employees working hard to do it, but when it takes a blip, 
obviously, it's a big number. 


MS. SHAHAN: Mr. Chairman and Members, thank you 
for this opportunity to speak in support of the nomination. 

I'm Rosemary Shahan, President of Consumers for 
Auto Reliability and Safety. We're a grassroots, nonprofit 
organization that works on auto lemon and lemon laundering 

We've petitioned the Federal Trade Commission to 
look into lemon laundering, and they've agreed to do that. 
We're part of an ongoing negotiating group that includes state 
AGs, and the auto industry, and consumer groups, discussing a 


possible federal rule. 

I have to admit that at one time I was very 
skeptical about the DMV's ability and resolve to effectively 
enforce the Legislature's intent in passing laws prohibiting 
auto lemon laundering. 

I have to say we've been very -- we're very 
appreciative of this stand that the DMV has taken in enforcing 
those statutes that affects consumer health and safety, as well 
as economic impacts on millions of Calif ornians . 

Thank you. 


Questions? No, we're okay. Thank you very 

MR. HELMICK: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members. I 
am Spike Helmick, Commissioner of the California Highway Patrol. 
I'll keep my comments very brief. 

I just would like to mention that Ms. Reed is a 
person of vision and a great deal of leadership. It's been 
indeed a pleasure this last year to work with her. Whenever 
there's been a problem with issues that DMV can assist law 
enforcement, she's been very receptive, willing to sit down with 
us on a very short notice. I've found it a very pleasant 
change . 

And more importantly, I've been very impressed. 
She has one goal in mind, and that is, of course, to service the 
citizens of the state, which I think what we're all out here to 

So, I would certainly ask that you give her 


favorable consideration. 

Thank you. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Thank you, Spike. Questions? 

Okay, I want to make sure that I've asked, again, 
in ways that I can understand, the DMV computer problem. What's 
your forecast as to eventual success, at what cost, and so on? 

MS. REED: Let me say this. We will be 
extraordinarily careful. We will take every step toward moving 
the DMV to a modern level of computerization with a great deal 
of input from the Legislature, from all of the organizations, 
their control agencies. 

I believe we are a number of years off, six, 
eight, maybe ten. I have recently hired a new CIO who's very 
ambitious and thinks we can do great things. I'm glad that he 
thinks that. I'm putting him in a room with all the cynics, and 
we're batting it around. 

We are going to look at all of the 
possibilities. When we got bids this last time that were higher 
than we expected, we didn't even consider awarding a contract. 
We immediately went back to all the agencies and said, this is 
not what we told you we were going to buy for this amount of 
money. We paid our validation consultants that had been 
overseeing it. Not another dime was spent. That money will be 
rolled over. 

Everything we do, we will do with a recognition 
that, frankly, the Tandem experience is a huge black eye for DMV 
that the Department doesn't fully deserve. And I want to turn 
that around, but I can only do that with great caution, and 


frankly, a very slow but steady process toward the future. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: We all hope you are 

MS. REED: So do I . 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Other questions from Members? 
What's the pleasure of the committee? 

SENATOR LEWIS: Move confirmation. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: We have a motion by Senator 
Lewis to recommend confirmation. Let's call the roll. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Senator Ayala. 



Ayala Aye. Senator Brulte. 

Brulte Aye. Senator Hughes. 

Hughes Aye. Senator Lewis. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Lewis Aye. Senator Lockyer. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Lockyer Aye. Five to zero. 
MS. REED: Thank you very much. 
CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Thank you, and we wish you 
well and hope that you'll leave it a little better, 
significantly better. 

MS. REED: I'm going to try very hard. 
CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Let's see, I guess we're at 
Mr. Kranz, the Board of Governors, California Community 


MR. KRANZ: Good afternoon, Senator. 

I'm Thomas F. Kranz, K-r-a-n-z. It's a great 
pleasure to be before the Senator and the other Members. 


MR. KRANZ: And I would like to say, I have no 
written prepared statement, but I would like to say a few 
opening remarks. 

First, it is indeed a great honor to be nominated 
for this position by the Governor, and I respectfully hope that 
I will be able to be as diligent as possible, because there is 
undoubtedly no higher priority in our state than education. The 
Constitution acknowledges that, and I think all of us from all 
over our great state recognize just how critical education is at 
all levels. 

I would like to acknowledge the presence here of 
the Chancellor of our state colleges, Tom Nussbaum and the Vice 
Chancellor for Legislative Affairs, Gus Guichard, who I know 
many of you have worked with on regular basis. In the few short 
months that I have been sitting as a member, I've relied 
tremendously on their expertise, and it's been a pleasure to 
work with them. 

I do want to be open for questions, but I just 
wanted to recognize my own background. I am a native 
Calif ornian, grown up and born, educated in California. I've 
had the great opportunity to have degrees from two of the UC 
campuses, and a degree from one of our fine private 
universities . 

But I recognize how critical the community 


colleges are in our state. The so-called elite higher education 
is meaningless without a really quality community college system 
that reinforces what California has always been, in the 
forefront of education, of productivity, of technology, of 
fulfilling what is our future and what has been the heritage 
this state has given to the country and to the world. 

I think more and more people recognize the great 
opportunity the community colleges present, and that is what I 
have the strong commitment to ensuring excellence at all levels, 
to continue that this is an open opportunity for everyone at all 
levels. And without the funding and the leadership in the 
college system, we short-change whatever advantages those 
students and graduates may have from those so-called elite 
schools, because they are only out in a long range distance 
compared to what has to be to be, that strong educated work 
force within our state. 

I am willing and very eager to answer any 
questions any of you may have. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Let me ask if there is any 
comment. Yes, Senator Hughes. 

SENATOR HUGHES: I don't have a comment. I have 
a few questions. 

Thank you very much for being with us today. I'm 
very impressed by your background. I think you probably bring 
great insight into this. 

MR. KRANZ: Thank you. 

SENATOR HUGHES: What is your perception of the 
role of the Board of Governors as compared to the role of the 


local Boards of Trustees, and do you think that this role should 
remain as it is, or should it be changed or strengthened? 

MR. KRANZ: Well, I think that's a good solid 
question, because as I understand it, this has been an area of 
contention in the past. And that has been the lack of a 
coordinated communication among the various districts. As I 
understand it, there's 71 districts, 106 individual colleges. 

But under the Constitution, under the statutes of 
the state, they are under the authority of the Board of 
Governors. The Board of Governors has to require 
accountability, but there has to be some flexability to 
recognize that it's not within our power to micro-manage every 

I'm an Angelino, as you are. And I'm certainly 
aware of our seven colleges in the L.A. district, and how much 
the elected representatives of that district have, just on a 
daily basis, of what they have to work with. 

But the Board of Governors has to oversee this. 
They have to work with the leaders of the state, the 
Legislature, the Governor's Office, and the Chancellor system to 
try to ensure that's there's a uniformity of standards, both in 
accountability on direction and our regulations. 

So, I think that this is changing. I think 
Chancellor Nussbaum has been an extraordinary leader, which I, 
in just the few months I've been there, have great admiration 
for what he's been able to do. And I think, from what I 
understand, there's a new spirit on the Board of Governors 
recognizing the need for a very close relationship between the 


various districts and the Board. 

But it's certainly one that I think has to be 
Monitored at all times. 

SENATOR HUGHES: Mr. Kranz, could you tell me if 
the Community College Board has an ongoing working relationship 
with the State Board of Education to prepare K-12 students for 
college level work? And if not, should they? 

MR. KRANZ: Well, as I understand it, we are 
certainly looking at that. The State commission on Higher 
Education has recommended along those lines. We had a retreat 
among the Board of Governors in Pasadena in February discussing 

Our regular bi-monthly meetings begin this 
Wednesday and Thursday here in Sacramento, and we have the 
various legislative and separate committees to discuss this. 

I know that in all of our meetings, we've had 
representatives from the secondary system as well as the other 
systems of higher education that attend regularly. 

And nothing is more important than some form of 
standards and credibility as to how the students that are coming 
into the community colleges are prepared by the secondary 
system, because this is, as I understand it, one of the real 
areas of concern is, are they prepared to take advantage of the 
opportunities the community colleges offer, both in vocational 
and technology, as well as transferring on to four-year 
colleges. There has to be greater dialogue and working with the 
secondary systems. 

SENATOR HUGHES: Is that one of your personal 



MR. KRANZ : Being, as I mentioned/ living and 
growing up in Los T^geles, I see it as critical, because that — 
I feel we have a superb system of higher education in our state, 
but where we're lacking is some of the problems that occur in 
the secondary systems where we are losing -- in fact, the L.A . 
Times story today, a very in-depth article about some high 
schools have 20 to 25 percent admissions to the UCs, and others 
are below A percent. And that hits home with what we're talking 
about . 

I think any Californian has to be concerned about 
this, because that leads to a path that could be very 
disconcerting for the future unless that's addressed in near 

SENATOR HUGHES: Certainly, if we're working to 
create more employment in our state, we want to make certain 
that the employment force is ready, and able, and willing to go 
to work. 

MR. KRANZ: Absolutely. 


How do you feel about the whole idea of student 
fees, and the fact that the financial aid for the community 
colleges has grown significantly over the last several years? 

MR. KRANZ: Well, the community colleges are 
unique in one sense. They're really the last opportunity for so 
many students of all ages. And Senator Ayala asked me about 
this earlier today in a brief chance I had, and it was a 
pleasure having a chance to discuss this. 


I feel/ certainly the history shows when we had a 
$50 unit fee, I think we lost over 100,000 students who had to 
drop out or couldn't re-enroll. That affects the whole state, 
and that does not serve the state well. 

If the cost of everything is going up, I know 
there's a need for more full-time faculty, but unless there's a 
critical need, that has to be last resort in the community 
colleges. It doesn't really serve what the purpose of the 
community colleges are in the Master Plan of Higher Education. 

You recognize that certainly those in need should 
never be forced to do this. They are the ones that should be 
given the opportunity for jobs, part-time work, scholarship, 
federal and state aid. 

I do not think that this is one that has to be 
pushed. I think if it is some form of fee system, if it is an 
absolute necessity that is incremental at the most minute way, 
and that was anticipated, and it can be documented over a long 
period of time so there's an expectancy, what would be the 
possible fees that would be imposed, but certainly not something 
horrendous like a $50 dollar unit because that can be 
catastrophic to a large number of the million-three, which will 
go up to a million-five in the not too distant future, students 
enrolled in the colleges. 

So, I am not pushing fees in any respect. But I 
recognize that of all the higher systems, that the community 
colleges have to hold the line on open access as much as 

SENATOR HUGHES: Thank you very much. 


SENATOR BRULTE: I just wanted to say, it was a 
privilege to work with Tom in Washington during the Reagan and 
Bush administrations, and I hope that doesn't hurt your chances 
for being confirmed today. 

MR. KRANZ: Senator, thank you. I'm pleased 
you're in the Senate. I partisanly miss you in the Assembly, 
but I'm glad you're here. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Was this the Army, the Defense 
Department, the National Security Council? 

SENATOR BRULTE: We did it all. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: I know what you did. 

SENATOR BRULTE: Tom worked for President Bush in 
the White House and worked over at the Pentagon. 

MR. KRANZ: Right, under the Reagan 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Mr. Kranz, I haven't worked 
with you, but I'm very, very impressed — 

MR. KRANZ: Thank you, sir. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: -- by the vita. 

You, it would seem to me, would be well qualified 
for any job that this Governor has to appoint people to. I'd be 
proud to move the motion to confirm you, unless there are other 
questions from Members. 

SENATOR HUGHES: One last one. This is probably 
very easy for you to answer. 

What do you think the role of community colleges 
should be in the implementation of welfare reform, the welfare 
reform that we are presently working on? The welfare reform 


that we hope moves, but does not stall the budget this year? 

MR. KRANZ : The committee meetings we have this 
Wednesday will be focusing on this. In fact, this is one that 
the Chancellor's office had prepared. Educating Welfare 
Recipients in California Community Colleges. 

John Rice, a member of our board who's been a 
member for many years now, has made this a priority for the 

It is absolute — it's a necessity that the 
colleges are involved in a major way, because both vocationally, 
job training, the new technology clusters that are centered — 
there's one at Santa Monica College — and the multi-media area, 
which is just getting off the ground. But this is a 
magnificent feat, used all over the state in our tremendous 
diversity of industry and product that we have. 

And I think you recognize how many community 
colleges there are in the state. In just about every district, 
every community where you have this tremendous presence of 
entrepreneurial capital, as well as growth in every sector, they 
have to be that immediate center where this is utilized. 

And there's a tremendous opportunity for the 
colleges to then use this training as a feeder into the state 
colleges and the UCs as this system evolves into a really 
healthy structure within the state. 

So, I'm a great proponent of that, although I 
would defer that there are others on our Board of Governors who 
have made this -- they've been involved in this for awhile. I 
welcome that, because I think that it's going to be a challenge. 


SENATOR HUGHES: With your wealth of experience, 
I hope you will assist us in helping us to reach our goal of 
having a workable welfare reform program, which we can put 
everybody to work. 

MR. KRANZ: Well, I think that has to be the goal 
for our state. 


CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Okay, we have a motion to 
confirm. Call the roll. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Senator Ayala. 







Ayala Aye. Senator Brulte. 


Brulte Aye. Senator Hughes. 

Senator Lewis. 

Hughes Aye 


SECRETARY WEBB: Lewis Aye. Senator Lockyer. 


SECRETARY WEBB: Lockyer Aye. Five to zero. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Thank you, good luck. 

MR. KRANZ: Mr. Chairman, thank you. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Thank you for your service 

Mr. Schrimp, good afternoon. 

We want to ask you a lot about your dating 
service and other such matters. Apparently, that's the 
principle issue that's going to come up during your 


Senator Monteith, you're welcome to say 
something, if you'd wish to. 

Do you know about his dating service? You should 
let us know that, too. 

SENATOR MONTEITH: Just a short statement, 
please . 

Roger Schrimp is a very capable individual. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: He's looking serious now. I 
started it that way, and I'd better say something quickly. 

Just because you introduced a long-time friend of 
Senator Brulte to someone else, and they've announced their 
pending marriage. 

MR. SCHRIMP: Oh, Diane. I did. I did that. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: At least he accepts 
responsibility for his misdeeds. 

SENATOR BRULTE: I already moved to confirm. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Senator Monteith. 

SENATOR MONTEITH: That just goes to show that he 
has the ability to address tough situations, and he comes 
through with a smile. 

And with that, I would ask for an Aye. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Thank you. Senator. 

Did you want to make any opening statements at 

MR. SCHRIMP: Just very briefly that I also 
consider it a very high honor to have the opportunity to be 
appointed to this position. 

- • I'm a graduate of what was than Stockton Junior 


College. That's where I met my wife. And incidentally, I did 
introduce them. But then Diane went over to my wife to confirm 
everything I had said about the individual I was introducing her 

Anyway, my wife serves on the Yosemite College 
Board, and I used to serve on a school board in the Oakdale 

I'm very excited about this. I'm very interested 
in economic development, vocational education. I was fortunate 
enough to be named the chair of that. Hopefully, I'll get 
confirmed and can continue with my desires to help that system. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Senator Hughes. 

SENATOR HUGHES : From your background and your 
interest in economic development, what do you foresee in 
districts like mine, an inner city where a lot of businesses 
have closed, and there's not a lot of incentive or assistance in 
helping them to reopen and to start anew? 

And we have a lot of people who are beginning 
entreprenuers that need a lot of assistance. 

How will this background help you with the 
student population that you're going to be working with? 

MR. SCHRIMP: Obviously, there are a number of 
different state agencies, along with the community colleges, who 
are concerned about doing exactly what you're speaking of. 

Economic development means that, going out in the 
community and assisting the community in ideas, in concepts, in 
training programs. And now, as you know, service oriented jobs 
are very significant. 


We need to get into the communities, offer our 
services, offer consultation. And then create our programs 
within the community colleges that will train people to fit the 
particular jobs that are available in those areas. 

There are some good programs going on with El 
Camino right now, as you know, the services, right. 

And we were at a meeting three or four weeks ago 
with the Manufacturing Council down there, which are in 
partnership with the community college, giving advice for some 
businesses for as little as $50 an hour, and others they charge 
up to $150, but they provide the technological support that 
these industries need so that they can get started and 
continuing growth. 

We also, as you know, in San Diego have allowed 
small businesses to actually set up on the campuses themselves. 
And the school provides the assistance, advice, and things of 
that nature that they need for these small businesses to keep 

SENATOR HUGHES: Will Mr. Brulte be easier to 
work with after this new merger? 

SENATOR BRULTE: You don't want to go here. 

[Laughter. ] 

SENATOR HUGHES: I just say that because 
sometimes he's difficult. 

MR. SCHRIMP: I'd never heard that. 

SENATOR HUGHES: Well, guarantee to me you'll 
introduce me to the lady so I can give her some cautious 



MR. SCHRIMP: I will do that. She is a very 
lovely person. 

SENATOR HUGHES: That's why I want to give her 
some cautious advice. 

Thank you. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Others? Senator Ayala. 

SENATOR AYALA: I'd like to ask again what 
Senator Hughes asked the prior candidate. You're a product of 
the community college, I see. I just wondered about your views 
on student fees. 

I think that fees should be obviously involved if 
possible, and if you have to raise the fees, that you should 
give the students opportunity to work them out if they don't 
have the means. 

What are your views on that issue? 

MR. SCHRIMP: We're open access, as you know. 
We're open for any person in California to come to the community 
colleges who has a high school degree or equivalent, or who 
qualifies for a particular program that we have. 

A lot of people don't realize that we waive 
almost 30 percent of the fees already for students who do not 
have the financial wherewithal to go to community colleges. 

My personal belief, and I can't speak for the 
Board in this issue, is that I hope these fees don't go any 
higher. But we are planning for the year 2005, and we are going 
to require a lot of additional funding. We're going to commit 
almost $50 million of Prop. 98 funds to welfare reform issues. 


to deal with the things that we hope to do in that area. 

But if there are ever going to be any fee 
increases, they're going to have to be minimal, and we're going 
to have to work out some fashion that allows the students, in 
some way, to be able to generate the increase, what they're 
looking for. 

SENATOR AYALA: So, no one will be denied because 
of financial aid? 

MR. SCHRIMP: Absolutely not. 

SENATOR AYALA: Thank you. 

SENATOR HUGHES: I'd like to move it. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: We have motion to confirm. 
Call the roll. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Senator Ayala. 


SECRETARY WEBB: Ayala Aye. Senator Brulte. 
Senator Hughes. 


SECRETARY WEBB: Hughes Aye. Senator Lewis. 
Senator Lockyer. 



CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: We'll hold it open for the 
other Senators to record. 

[Thereafter, Senator Lewis and 
Senator Brulte voted Aye, making 
the final vote 5-0 for 


CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Thank you. Good luck, and we 
appreciate your public service. 

MR. SCHRIMP: Thank you very much, sir. 
CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Members, we have a 
gubernatorial appointee to the State Board of Education. You 
may recall, we had a fairly lengthy hearing with her and another 
gentleman. The other person was confirmed at a previous meeting 
a week or two ago, and this is the remaining one, Marina Tse, 
State Board of Education. 

Anyone? We didn't have her come in because she's 
been interviewed by us once before. She's a teacher at Duarte. 

Any comment, or may I ask for a motion on the 


CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: We have a motion to confirm. 
May I record the three of us that are present as voting Aye, 
and then leave that roll Open if the others wish to record. 

[Thereafter, Senator Lewis and 
Senator Brulte voted Aye, and the 
final vote was 5-0 to confirm.] 
[Thereupon. This portion of the 
Senate Rules Committee hearing was 
terminated at approximately 3:26 P.M.] 
— ooOoo — 


I, EVELYN J. MIZAK, a Shorthand Reporter of the State 
of California, do hereby certify: 

That I am a disinterested person herein; that the 
foregoing transcript of the Senate Rules Committee hearing was 
reported verbatim in shorthand by me, Evelyn J. Mizak, and 
thereafter transcribed into typewriting. 

I further certify that I am not of counsel or 
attorney for any of the parties to said hearing, nor in any way 
interested in the outcome of said hearing. 

^ IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 

J^/ ' day of ^-^^^ , 1997 

^velyS^j . ^I z 

horthand Reporter 


Additional copies of this publication may be purchased for $3.50 per copy 
(includes shipping and handling) plus current California sales tax. 

Senate Publications 

1 020 N Street, Room B-53 

Sacramento, CA 95814 


Make checks payable to SENATE RULES COMMITTEE. 
Please include Stock Number 325-R when ordering. 






JUN -21997 



ROOM 113 


MONDAY, MAY 19, 1997 
1:50 P.M. 





ROOM 113 


MONDAY, MAY 19, 1997 
1:50 P.M. 

Reported by 

Evelyn J. Mizak 
Shorthand Reporter 










GREG SCHMIDT, Executive Officer 

PAT WEBB, Committee Secretary 

NANCY MICHEL, Consultant on Governor's Appointments 

WADE TEASDALE, Consultant to Vice Chair 


California State Prison at Corcoran 

FRANK R. SEARCY, President 

Chicano Correctional Workers Association 

ROY MABRY, State President 

Association of Black Correctional Workers 

RICHARD L. TATUM, State President 
California Correctional Supervisors 


ROD NASON, Chapter President 
Corcoran State Prison Chapter 

California State Prison, Delano 
Kern County Department 

State Board of Education 

KEITH P. BISHOP, Commissioner 
Department of Corporations 



Proceedings 1 

Governor's Appointees: 


California State Prison at Corcoran 1 

Background and Experience 1 

Witnesses in Support: 

FRANK R. SEARCY, President 

Chicano Correctional Workers Association 2 

ROY MABRY, State President 

Association of Black Correctional Workers 2 

RICHARD TATUM, State President 

California Correctional Supervisors Organization 3 

Questions by SENATOR LEWIS re: 

Current Status of Various Investigations 

at Corcoran 3 

Any Reforms Initiated at Corcoran 4 

Questions by SENATOR AYALA re: 

Inmate Beatings at Corcoran 5 

Incident Involving Busload of Black 
Inmates Transferred from Calipatria 
State Prison to Corcoran 5 

Unusually Large Number of Disciplinary 

Actions against Staff for Alleged 

Inmate Beatings 6 

Incident Involving Masked Staff 

Wielding Batons 7 

Reason for High Number of Killings 

in California Prisons 8 

Reason Pelican Bay and Corcoran Are 

Most Dangerous Prisons 9 

FBI Investigation of Corcoran 11 


Weapons Policy at CDC 11 

Current Population at Corcoran 12 

Percentage of Inmates at Minimum 

to High Minimum Custody Status 12 

Coping with Overcrowding 13 

Adequacy of Training of Correctional 

Officers 14 

Alternatives to Incarceration 14 

Steps Taken to Improve Corcoran 15 

Witnesses in Support: 


California Correctional Peace Officers Association ... 18 

ROD NASON, Chapter President 

Corcoran State Prison 


Motion to Confirm 19 

Committee Action 20 


California State Prison, Delano 

Kern County Department 20 

Background and Experience 20 

Questions by SENATOR AYALA re: 

Prison Capacity at North Kern 21 

Policy Changed Need to Alleviate 

Prison Overcrowding 21 

Any Problems Similar to Those at 

Corcoran or Pelican Bay 22 

Alternatives to Incarceration 23 

High Incidence of Violence in 

California Prisons 23 

Numbers of Inmates Killed in 

California Prisons 25 

Over-time at North Kern 27 

Questions by SENATOR HUGHES re: 

Alternatives to Incarceration 28 

Percentage of Drug Addicts in 

Prison Population 29 

Drugs Coming into Prison through Mail 3 

Prison Policy regarding Staff Involved 

in Supplying Drugs to Inmates 31 

Success of Reading Programs at 

Institution 31 

Motivation for Literacy Programs 3 3 

Suggestions for Improving CDC's 

Educational Programs 34 

Monitoring What Inmate Tutors 

Teach to Their Students 35 

Monitoring Those Inmates with 

Leadership Abilities 37 

Incentives for Inmate Informants 3 8 

Questions by SENATOR AYALA re: 

Special Treatment for Inmates on 

the MAC Council 39 

Warden • s Veto Power over MAC 

Selection 41 

Motion to Confirm 41 

Committee Action 42 


State Board of Education 4 3 

Questions by CHAIRMAN LOCKYER re: 

Current School Status 4 3 


Enjoyment of Term at State Board 43 

Plans for Future 44 

Questions by SENATOR HUGHES re: 

Advice to Successor 44 

Motion to Confirm 45 

Committee Action 45 

KEITH P. BISHOP, Commissioner 

Department of Corporations 46 

Statements by CHAIRMAN LOCKYER re: 

Recent Press Release by Governor's 

Office re: Ombudsperson 46 

Decision to Hold Hearing on Thursday, 

May 23, 1997 46 

Termination of Proceedings 46 

Certificate of Reporter 47 

— OOOOO — 

SENATOR LEWIS: We are going to start as a 
subcommittee today. There are various legislative hearings that 
are making it difficult for us to achieve a quorum off the 
start . 

What we are doing today is to begin with the 
Governor's appointees who are required to appear. We would like 
to begin with Mr. Galaza, Warden at Corcoran. 

MR. GALAZA: Good afternoon. 

SENATOR LEWIS: Welcome. Would you like to begin 
with any opening statements? 

MR. GALAZA: Yes, I would. I'd like to thank the 
Committee for allowing me the opportunity to be here today to 
present my credentials as a warden at California State Prison at 

I'd like to give you a little bit of a history of 
my resume and my experience within the Department of 
Corrections. Basically, I have been approximately 18 years with 
the Department of Corrections. I've worked at six different 
facilities in a variety of managerial and supervisory positions 
that have included captain positions, associate warden 
positions, chief deputy warden positions, and warden. 

I was previously the warden at North Kern State 
Prison and transferred on October 22nd to California State 
Prison at Corcoran as the Warden. 

SENATOR LEWIS: Thank you very much. 

Let's open it up for anyone in the audience who 

would wish to offer testimony at this time on behalf of Warden 

MR. SEARCY: Good afternoon, gentlemen. I am 
Frank R. Searcy/ President of the Chicano Correctional Workers 

As Mr. Galaza has already explained to you his 
qualifications, we, the Chicano Correctional Workers 
Association, also feel that he is very, very well qualified and 
very well rounded experience for the position of warden. 

We also spoke for him and supported his tendency 
at his last hearing when he was going for Warden at North Kern 
State Prison. And again, we feel honored to be able to repeat 
our role. 

Again, without anything else, I'd like to again 
offer our support for Mr. Galaza as Warden at Corcoran State 
Prison. Thank you. 

SENATOR LEWIS: Thank you very much. 

Anyone else wishing to testify on behalf of Mr. 

MR. MABRY: Good afternoon. I'm Roy Mabry, the 
State President for ABCW, and the comments similar to Frank, we 
give George one hundred percent of our support, as we did the 
last time he was up for confirmation. He's a very well 
qualified candidate. 

SENATOR LEWIS: All right, thank you very much. 

MR. M7VBRY: You're welcome. 

SENATOR LEWIS: Any further testimony in support, 
please come forward. 

MR. TATUM: Good afternoon. I am Richard 
Tatum. I'm the State President of the California Correctional 
Supervisors Organization. We represent about 1500 supervisors 
in the California Department of Corrections. 

This is a pleasure for me to speak up for 
Mr. Galaza. I've known him for a lot of years on an individual 
basis and worked with him. 

Before we do these things, we do a lots of 
checking into how the chapter at that institution supports 
him. I think that everyone there is in support of him. 

Like I say, this is not his first time go around 
as a warden. He did an excellent job the last time. I'd like 
to say that the chapter's supporting, and I personally support 
him. I think he's type of person that we need in these 
institutions to run them as far as ethics and ethical behavior, 
honesty, and those type of things that we need. 

That's all I have.- 

SENATOR LEWIS: Thank you very much. 

TVny further testimony in favor of confirmation? 

Is there anyone in the audience wishing to 
express concerns or in opposition to confirmation? 

Warden, there have been some documented problems 
at Corcoran in the past. What's in current status of the 
various investigations you've looked into, those things that 
have occurred particularly at the SHU? 

MR. GALAZA: Currently we have series of ongoing 
investigations at the prison. There have been a number of 
agencies that have been involved. Our own department, our 

Special Services Unit, our own Internal Affairs within Corcoran 
Prison, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Kings County Grand 
Jury, as well as other outside interested parties. 

Currently, as I said, there are a number of 
investigations that are ongoing. Our Security Housing Unit 
continues to operate, and it's operating at this point very 
well, I believe. We've done a tremendous amount of work to 
maintain that unit in the fashion that we feel would make the 
Department and the Governor's Office, as well as the state, 
proud of it, and I think we've accomplished it. 

SENATOR LEWIS: Have either the Grand Jury 
investigations, the Department of Justice investigations been 
concluded yet? 

MR. GALAZA: No. We've heard nothing back from 
them as yet. 

SENATOR LEWIS: In the wake of what did take 
place there, what reforms have you initiated or are attempting 
to initiate to try to deal with that? 

MR. GALAZA: Well, certainly one of areas that we 
focused in very closely on, particularly on my date of arrival 
there in October, was on the issues relative to use of force. 
The primary focus was on the Security Housing Units, the SHU 
Units as they're reported to be. And what we did, to sum it up, 
was, we reviewed the operational plan which was the governing 
plan to run those units. 

We revised where necessary. We clarified where 
necessary. We upgraded where necessary. We also provided a 
tremendous amount of training in the use of force techniques. 

use of force practices, consistent with the Department of 
Corrections policies. That training was offered not just to 
staff in the Security Housing Unit, but to all staff in the 
prisons, since at any given point in time, any staff could work 
in there. 

We also revised our in cell assault policies. 
For clarification, that basically sets the policy wherein, 
should there be an in cell assault, a cell fight, or some sort 
of other aggression within a cell, the policy does allow us to 
quell that problem, minimizing the possible exposure of risk, of 
fire or deadly fire of any sort to the inmate, and certainly 
minimizing the response time and, if possible, danger to staff. 

SENATOR LEWIS: Thank you. 

Senator Ayala, did you have any questions? 

SENATOR AYALA: I believe that most of the 
problems that we heard about were not during your term of office 
or your watch. But there has been quite a bit of publicity on 
some of the inmate beatings at Corcoran. 

On June 21st, 1995, a bus load of black inmates 
transferred from Calipatria State Prison to CSP, Corcoran. Was 
beaten as they were taken off the bus. 

You were on watch at the time, on May 13 of 

MR. GALAZA: No, I was not at CSP Corcoran at 
that time. 

SENATOR AYALA: Can you tell us what happened? 
How did this occur? Weren't these people protected or guarded 
as they arrived on the scene from Calipatria? 

MR. GALAZA: Truly, a bus load of inmates from 
Calipatria Prison was transferred to Corcoran State Prison, 

But I think at this point in time, we do have an 
ongoing investigation. It probably would be very presumptions 
of me to discuss the details of the situation at this point in 
time . 

The Department is taking a firm look at it, has 
taken a firm hand in the matter. At this point in time, the 
investigations are ongoing. There's other issues that we're 
reviewing in terms of possible progressive discipline with that 

As I said, it'd be presumptious of me at this 
point in time to comment further on an ongoing investigation. 

SENATOR AYALA: Action's has been taken to avoid 
that from happening again, of course. 

MR. GALAZA: Certainly. 

SENATOR AYALA: According to the Sacramento Bee, 
on May, 13th, 1996, an unusually large disciplinary action, 
associate warden, a captain, three lieutenants, and three 
sergeants have been fired for alleged beatings. In addition to 
these staff, this determination, more than a dozen other 
officers are facing disciplinary action, ranging from letters of 
reprimand to termination. 

How could that happen? I don't quite understand 
how things could get out of hand so much. That was, again, 
before your term. 

MR. GALAZA: Yes, Senator. You're absolutely 
correct, that was before my arrival at CSP Corcoran. 

It's a little difficult for me to comment on the 
wheres and whys of how it may have happened. 

One thing I can tell you is that in my tenure at 
Corcoran, since and through and forever forward, my type of 
management, my type of supervision certainly would be the type 
that would not foster possibility of having issues occur without 
management being very pro-active in the involvement, without 
management being very aware and very accountable of all issues. 

SENATOR AYALA: On June 11th, 1995, according to 
an inmate letter, at about 1:00 P.M., staff in that building 
III-A shot at fire drill. They opened the cell doors and 
ordered inmates out. According to this letter, inmates were met 
by masked staff in military fatigues, wielding batons. Regular 
staff were also present. 

Could you tell us how something like that could 
occur at a prison? Is this true? 

MR. GALAZA: Well again. Senator, there is an 
ongoing investigation into such an allegation at this point in 
time; that is correct. And the Department is reviewing it. 
Special Services, Investigative Services Units, are looking at 
the matter, have reviewed, and at this point in time, we are 
awaiting the conclusion of it. 

SENATOR AYALA: But the incident involving the 
inmates being transferred from Calipatria, has that be resolved? 
Has an investigation checked that out? 

MR. GALAZA: Part of that has been resolved. You 
just spoke to the issue where at least one staff member was 
fired and others received various disciplinary actions. 


Certainly, one portion of that issue has been 
resolved. The second portion, dealing with other associated 
staff/ is still under review. 

SENATOR AYALA: On that masked staff, did the 
Department ever recommend that on June 11th of '95, inmates were 
taken from their cells, and that masked correctional officers 
selectively beat black inmates? Have you investigated that one? 

MR. GALAZA: At this point in time, there is an 
ongoing investigation. That is part of the allegations of the 
entire search pattern that occurred on that date. 

SENATOR AYALA: I have a whole list of things 
that happened there, probably before your arrival. You and I 
went over this. The number of inmates killed by guards in the 
country. No other state except for Illinois has more than one. 
Illinois has two. Every other state, including Texas, has one, 
and most of them have none. 

In California, we have 27 inmates that have been 
killed by other inmates or by law enforcement officers. 

Can you tell us me why that is so high, 27 
opposed to one in just about every other state in the country? 

MR. GALAZA: Certainly, there may be a number of 
variables that contribute to that, not the least of which, of 
course, is the large inmate population that we have. We do have 
a fairly violent inmate population. 

Certainly California, in the structure within the 
prisons, has accessibility to more weapons than perhaps some 
other facilities do throughout other states in California 
[sic] . 

I think again, I must say that it's certainly all 
of our responsibilities to minimize violence within the prison 
system. I believe that the Department's use of force policies 
work in that direction, and certainly it's warden's 
responsibility to carry those use of force responsibilities out 
and ensure that violence is held to an absolute minimum. 

SENATOR AYALA: Why is this facility, along with 
the prison up north, Del Norte, why are these the most dangerous 
really for inmates and for staff members than all the others? 
We have 31, 32 prisons. 

MR. GALAZA: Thirty-two. 

SENATOR AYALA: Why are these, the highest 
incidents, happening at these prisons. 

MR. GALAZA: Well, that's an interesting 
question. And to be sure, within the Department there are 32 
prisons. And out of the 32 prisons, there are two prisons 
within the State of California that are designed to hold inmates 
where they have been unable to program at any other level. 
Those, of course, are Pelican Bay and California State Prison at 

Throughout other states in the Union, they call 
those super max facilities, 37 throughout the entire Union, two 
of them in California. 

We receive, as well as Pelican Bay, those inmates 
that have no program capabilities within any other general 
population in the prison. 

In the Security Housing Unit, you do not have 
inmates being committed directly from the courts or being 


received directly from a reception center unless they have 
assaulted either staff or other inmates. 

So, what we have there is, right off the top, the 
potential for a greater level of violence due to the nature of 
the inmate that comes in. These inmates are failures within 
the system. 

Also, another issue is that at Corcoran Prison, 
we program these inmates. Program meaning exercise on open 
yards within the Security Housing Unit. These yards are 
approximately 74 feet long, 35 feet wide, and pie shaped. We 
put up to 20 inmates on these yards. Certainly, we do 
everything possible in ensuring that those inmates that are 
placed in those exercise yards are not enemies. Certainly, we 
do everything possible to ensure that their placement on those 
yards is going to reflect the safety for each other. 

But they do get into altercations, they do get 
into fights. Therefore, our level of violence, because of that 
type of programming, that type of yard, would certainly be 
higher than the rest of the system. And in actuality, we would 
have more occurrences of fights and altercations than Pelican 
Bay State Prison. 

The design of Pelican Bay State Prison, in terms 
of exercise, allows for one perhaps two at the most out on a 
yard at any given point in time. Certainly, if you're out there 
by yourself, it's not likely you're going to get into a violent 
situation. If you're out there with another individual, it's 
more than likely your cellmate, and of course, to have a 
cellmate, you would have to have some compatibility purposes 


going to begin with. 

So, that might explain a bit of why, within the 
Security Housing Units, the potential for violence is higher 
than it is at other facilities. 

SENATOR AYALA: The FBI's investigating your 
prison today. They're not through with their investigation? 

MR. GALAZA: To the best of my knowledge, they 
are not . 

SENATOR AYALA: The weapons policy for the 
Department of Corrections has been changed recently. What was 
it, and what is it today in terms of weapons by the correctional 

MR. GALAZA: Well, the changes in the weapons 
policies were changes that changed a few years ago, actually 
about three or four years ago, and they were relative to the 
issue of whether or not weapons are to be worn, given movement 
of inmates or staff, where weapons are to be worn, and at what 
point in times. 

The actual policy within the Department of when 
to use -- and when I say weapon, I'm going to clarify it at this 
point in time by talking about lethal force -- when to use 
lethal force has not changed over the last number of years. 
And that is, that lethal force is authorized when there's a 
clear threat to life and limb of an individual or great property 
damage. So, that portion of it has not changed over a number of 
years . 

What has changed, as I said, when to wear a 
weapon, when not to wear a weapon; slinging and nonslinging of 


weapons, as well as clarifying other points within the shooting 
policy to make it a more viable, strong policy for the 
Department . 

SENATOR AYALA: What is the population of 
Corcoran now? 

MR. GALAZA: As of Friday, our population was 
4,786 inmates. 

SENATOR AYALA: And the design capacity is how 

MR. GALAZA: Approximately 2470. 

SENATOR AYALA: That 2400 is for single cells? 

MR. GALAZA: Correct. 

SENATOR AYALA: So, actually to double that, you 
wouldn't have any problem; would you? 

MR. GALAZA: Well, doubling and having population 
above 100 percent certainly does present problems in terms of 
over crowding. It does increase the potential for violence and 
other issues such as that. 

It does, of course, challenge us in terms of our 
support services, our education, and other aspects of our prison 

SENATOR AYALA: What percentage of your inmates 
are minimum to high minimum custody? 

MR. GALAZA: The percentage of inmates, well, 
I'll give you some actual numbers. We have approximately 470 
inmates that are minimum custody inmates at Corcoran Prison. 

SENATOR AYALA: So, about half are high risk? 

MR. GALAZA: The majority of inmates that we have 


there are medium custody, and then we have the maximum custody 
inmates within the Security Units and Administrative 

SENATOR AYALA: What have you done recently since 
you arrived to cope with the problem of over crowding? What can 
you do in terms of current design capacity? 

MR. GALAZA: Well, the things that wardens have 
to do to cope with such issues, I think, are related to three 
watch words that I have, and certainly this doesn't sum up 
everything, but for me, this sums up a large part of it. And 
that's issues relative to professionalism, issues relative to 
integrity, and issues relative to accountability. 

And what I mean by those three watch words are 
that it's critical that all the staff have those three elements, 
particularly when you're working under adverse situations with a 
relatively dangerous population, and even more so when you're in 
an over crowded population mode. 

It's important that staff are as professional as 
they can possibly be within their work attitude. It's extremely 
important. And when I say staff, I mean from management all the 
way through rank and file. 

It's extremely important that staff have 
integrity; integrity in assignment, and moral integrity within 
themselves . 

And certainly last but not least, it's extremely 
important that there are systems of accountability that are 
built in within the institution. 

And those are the three things that I have 


continually strived to do since I've arrived there, and will 
continue to work with. I believe those three issues certainly 
will help minimize situations and problems relative to over 
crowding or to anything else. 

SENATOR AYALA: Do you think the correctional 
officers are under trained to take those jobs? 

MR. GALAZA: Under trained in their jobs? 

SENATOR AYALA: Before they take the job, they 
should have more training? 

MR. GALAZA: No, I don't think that correctional 
officers are under trained within their particular jobs or 
assignments. Training is an ongoing issue, and it's incumbent 
upon the management at institution -- and right now I'm not 
talking about the academy; I'm just talking about the 
institution -- it's incumbent that the management provide as 
much training opportunities as possible. 

Also, training is an ongoing issue, so certainly 
there has to be built-in systems for ongoing training, refresher 
training, and as new policies and procedures come up, new 

SENATOR AYALA: Do you have any thoughts about 
alternatives to incarceration? Everybody talks about that. Do 
you have any thoughts about that? 

MR. GALAZA: In terms of alternatives to 
incarceration, be they probation, be they some other sort of 
system, I think California has done quite a bit in terms of 
alternatives to incarceration. 

To be sure, it takes a lot to incur a state 


prison term. If you look at the histories of the inmates that 
are within the California prisons, you will find, almost 
overwhelmingly, that these people have gone through a series of 
alternatives, a series of steps designed to lead them away from 
a destructive path leading to state prison. Numerous episodes 
of probation, numerous episodes in terms of halfway homes or 
other alternatives. Unfortunately, with a large number of them 
it, has not worked. 

I think certainly whatever that we can do to 
minimize any segments of our population going into a state 
prison facility as a state and as a people, we should do. I 
agree with that, but certainly our inmates, for the overwhelming 
majority, have had opportunities in the past. 

SENATOR AYALA: What steps have you taken since 
you arrived at Corcoran to improve that facility? According to 
what we read, that's the worst facility along with Del Norte in 
terms of safety for not only the inmates, but for the 
correctional officers as well. 

What steps have you taken to make sure that 
what's been happening before doesn't continue to happen any 

MR. GALAZA: The steps that I've taken have been 
relative to, as I said, the three words I mentioned, but 
accountability. Let's begin with accountability. 

We have set up a system there where the 
management team, meaning myself, the deputy wardens, as well as 
the associate wardens, and captains and so forth, are apprised 
on a daily basis through a series of management reports of 


exactly what occurred in that facility on the previous watches. 
We review these diligently each morning. 

We also have briefings every morning, where all 
the executive staff -- meaning the staff I've just mentioned and 
others -- discuss the issues of the day as well as the issues of 
past watches. 

We also have other accountability systems built 
into various components there. For instance, with incident 
reports, we have accountability systems built in that provide us 
with a daily review of all incident reports. 

I personally review every piece of paper, every 
document, that crosses my desk. I do it for two reasons. One, 
I believe in leadership by example. And in leadership by 
example, certainly I have to demonstrate that I am accountable 
as a leader of that prison. So, I review everything there. 

And I make my assignments accordingly. I make my 
assignments with the expectation that I do get a response, and I 
follow up on the responses. 

I expect my management staff to have those same 
levels of accountability and to hold their staff and their 
supervisors equally accountable, as well as the supervisors to 
hold the rank and file equally accountable. 

But again, all that would come to naught without 
some of the systems that we've initiated, some of the paper 
systems, some of the tracking systems, and some of the TIC 
systems within the facility. 

Again, with training, whenever the opportunity 
presents itself, we -- we meaning the management team -- 


continually push the issue of professionalism. We continually 
push the issue of integrity. 

We do everything possible when reviewing policy, 
when looking and making policy modifications or changes, to get 
the input from the staff that it affects the most, for who 
better knows what goes on on the line than the staff that work 
it. We take that. We review it in terms of departmental 
policy, and then make appropriate policy changes as needed. 

That's an ongoing -- that's on an ongoing basis, 
on an ongoing issue. 

I think that one of the things that we have to be 
very careful about is that we don't lock ourselves into a system 
thinking that this system is not an evolutionary system. 
Truly, Corrections is an evolutionary system, not the least of 
which is that you're dealing with people on a day-to-day basis, 
people whose temperaments change on a day-to-day basis. 

But certainly as policies change, or as we see a 
better way to do business, a better way to make the prison safer 
for all concerned, a better way to make the prison a safety 
deterrent for the community, certainly we have to initiate those 
changes as we go along. 

SENATOR AYALA: Thank you, sir. You've got a 
tough job. Good luck to you. 

SENATOR LEWIS: Thank you. Senator. 

Let's take this opportunity to establish a 
quorum. Secretary, please call the roll. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Senator Ayala. 




Ayala Aye. Senator Brulte. 


Brulte Aye. Senator Hughes. 


Hughes here. Senator Lewis. 



Lewis here. A quorum of four is 


SENATOR LEWIS: Let's give anyone in the audience 
one more opportunity. Is there anyone here that would like to 
comment on this confirmation? Come forward, sir. 

MR. THOMPSON: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members. 
Jeff Thompson with the California Peace Officers Association. 

I apologize for not coming in at front end of the 

We have met with Mr. Galaza concerning the 
ongoing concerns of Corcoran State Prison. We have with us 
today our Chapter President, Rod Nason, whom I'd like to ask to 
come forward just to give the perspective of the line officers 

MR. NASON: I'm going to go ahead and read. I'm 
Rod Nason. I'm the Chapter President at Corcoran State Prison. 

I'd like to say that Corcoran has been under fire 
for the last three years by alleged inmate abuse allegations and 
a barrage of media accounts. This has taken a large toll on 
managers along with rank and file staff. 

This warden has and will have a tough job ahead 
of him. Besides the managing and administrative duties of a 


multi-million dollar budget, he will have the task of rebuilding 
and healing staff morale. 

At no time has a prison and its staff had to 
endure FBI, Department of Justice, DA investigations, county and 
federal grand juries, along with working with the state's worst 
and most violent criminals in the state. 

Mr. Galaza, I would like to say labor and 
management will have disagreements, but it's my belief that we 
can work on common goals. Management and CCPOA do have an 
obligation to rebuild morale to bring a positive image -- and to 
bring a positive image back to Corcoran State Prison. 

I could keep this distinguished Committee here 
for weeks, complaining about perceived unfair inequities that 
have befallen on our staff, but that is not why I'm here. 

In meetings and conversation with Mr. Galaza, it 
is my belief that we have determined that we must work 
together. I have extended my hand and hope that we can bring 
back a positive work environment at Corcoran State Prison, the 
staff that really work the toughest beat in the state. 

SENATOR LEWIS: Thank you very much. 

What's the pleasure of the Committee? 


SENATOR LEWIS: We have a motion. Call the roll. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Senator Ayala. 



Ayala Aye. Senator Brulte. 


Brulte Aye. Senator Hughes 



SECRETARY WEBB: Hughes Aye. Senator Lewis. 


SECRETARY WEBB: Lewis Aye. Senator Lockyer. 

Four to zero. 

[Later, Chairman Lockyer added his 
Aye vote, and the final vote was 
5-0 for confirmation.] 

SENATOR LEWIS: We'll move a call on that. 

Congratulations . 

MR. GALAZA: Thank you, Members of the Committee, 
and please have a good day. 

SENATOR LEWIS: Thank you. 

We would now like to invite Mr. Pruitt, Warden of 
Delano, to please come forward. 

Welcome, sir. 

MR. PRUITT: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am Bill 
Pruitt, currently the Warden at North Kern State Prison. 

You have my resume, but I would like to recap my 
managerial experience because I think it's important in running 
any institution in the State of California today. 

I came to the state from the Los Angeles Police 
Department, having spent 25 years with that department. I came 
into state government at the agency level. I was Deputy 
Secretary in the Correctional Agency for three years. 

I was subsequently appointed and the Chairman and 
member of the Youthful Offender Parole Board for four years, and 
I asked to go out into the field to learn more about the 



correctional management of institutions so that, at least from a 
policy standpoint, I would know more about what is going on in 
Corrections today. And I have spent two years in CDC getting 
that experience, and I am very pleased to be here to entertain 
your questions. 

SENATOR LEWIS: Thank you very much. 

Any questions from Members of the Committee? 
Senator Ayala. 

SENATOR AYALA: I'd like to ask Mr. Pruitt, what 
is the capacity over at where you're now located? What is the 
capacity in the prison itself. 

MR. PRUITT: Right now the population is almost 
200 percent of the design capacity, about 2850. I have about 
5200 inmates in the institution right now. 

SENATOR AYALA: You're using every cell, a single 
person per cell? 

MR. PRUITT: That's correct. On a daily basis, I 
take a look at the number of available cells in the 
institution. We have over crowded the dorms. 

We have -- the only room I have in my inn is in 
my Ad. Seg., because I need those beds to bring inmates in and 
out who have disciplinary problems. 

This is a reception center also, so my population 
is very fluid. 

SENATOR AYALA: What policy changes should be 
pursued to alleviate prison over crowding, in your opinion? 

MR. PRUITT: Well, I think the last thing that we 
should try to do is to look for alternatives to not send people 


to state prison, because we've looked at those; we've exhausted 

We do have a shortage of Level II beds. And to 
the extent that our current classification system is based upon 
what we project as the institutional needs, I think we need to 
take a look at different types of designs, perhaps, that would 
allow us to bring in additional inmates at the proper level, 
maybe at a lower cost to the state. 

Beyond that, I think that we're doing a 
commendable job in the mission that we're carrying out today. 
Beds for the future is something that will be based on 
population projections and other factors which would help us 
manage the prisons better. 

SENATOR AYALA: You haven't had any problems like 
Corcoran and Del Norte, have you, in terms of inmates getting 
shot and killed, and officers being pushed around? 

MR. PRUITT: Every institution in the state is 
faced with similar problems on a day-to-day basis. I have an 
Ad. Seg. Unit. I have Pelican Bay and Corcoran inmates going in 
and out of my institution, and on any particular day, I may have 
more endorsed prison gang members than perhaps Corcoran Prison 
in my Ad. Seg. 

To the extent that as a manager I do not know 
what is going on, I do not get out front and manage those 
problems when inmates are going through my Administrative 
Segregation, certainly things could happen at North Kern similar 
to other institutions. 

I think that having worked with Mr. Galaza, 


you've heard of his philosophy. Well, Mr. Galaza was one of the 
individuals who helped train me in the CDC system, so proactive 
management is basically what new prison managers need to be 
involved with. If you don't manage the problem, the problem 
will manage you. It will embarrass the state, and it will cost 
the state a great deal of money. 

The idea is, you need to know what is causing the 
problems, and you need to do whatever it takes to manage those 
so that they don't become problems. 

SENATOR AYALA: I see where Mr. Galaza, he 
resigned. That's when you took his place, but he's moving over 
to Corcoran. Is that why he resigned? 

MR. PRUITT: He was asked by the Governor to go 
to Corcoran at the same time that I was brought in as Warden to 
North Kern. So, he was at North Kern one day and Corcoran the 
next day. 

SENATOR AYALA: Do you have any views on 
alternatives to incarceration? The over crowded conditions are 
probably the worst thing you could have in our prisons. 

But other states have similar problems, and they 
don't have the amount of violence in terms of inmates getting 
shot and the correctional officers getting hurt. 

I don't know why it is in California we have such 
high violence. Is it because we get all the people from 
other states, or what? 

MR. PRUITT: The only issues or statements that I 
could add to Mr. Galaza 's statements, that has to do with the 
variables that he mentioned. 


In many states, correctional officers are not 
armed with the type of weapons that we are armed with in this 
state. The opportunity, perhaps, to not get involved in 
shooting incidents maybe aren't there. 

But I think if you look at what has happened in 
some other states, for example, Oklahoma, where they're looking 
at their classification system to better manage their 
institution, because what they found was that many of the 
inmates who should have been classified as a higher level, at a 
higher level, were not. And they created significant security 
problems for the institution. 

This state is looked toward by other states in 
terms of our sophisticated classification system. So, we do 
identify individuals who are going to commit murder inside 
prisons. They will do this regardless of where you put them, 
if you give them the opportunity. 

And I think to the extent that we do not have 
more lethal situations is a testament to the quality of 
correctional officers, the line staff. 

And it's a pretty thin line to walk into one of 
my dormitories and see that I have 200 beds in a 100 bed design 
facility, and see the thin number of staff that are there to 
deal with any problems. They can take over at any time that 
they want, but I think it's because of the way that we've 
managed the system. 

We should look at California and be very proud of 
the fact that we do not have some of the problems that have been 


I challenge any state with the numbers that we 
have to be able to manage their populations the same way that 
California has. We have a few problems. Some of those have 
been embarrassing to the Department, but I think very few of 
those have gone undetected by management. We have taken a 
proactive role to deal with those issues when they come up. And 
we will work with all staff to make sure that we minimize the 
opportunity in the future. 

SENATOR AYALA: Statistics like the number of 
inmates killed by guards in the past five years: California 27; 
Texas none. 

Doesn't that kind of bother some of you that are 
involved? Something's wrong some place. You say you have a 
little bit of problem. I think you've got a lot of problems, to 
be frank with you. 

MR. PRUITT: Frankly, I cannot compare 
California's use of force policy with Texas's use of force 

We do review every incident in terms of lethal 
use of force, in terms of a formal review board to determine 
whether or not that incident was in policy or out of policy. 

We also review other shootings, the nonlethal 
shootings, for the same purpose. To the extent that we find 
that we're outside of guidelines, we deal with those. 

I challenge any other state that can manage the 
way California manages its prison population to do so without 
the use of force. 

And to the extent that we do have lethal force 


available, and it is justified under certain circumstances, I 
think we have to recognize that these are convicts who will take 
out a correctional officer or another individual, and they're at 
Pelican Bay because they have made it known, and they have done 
so. And to the extent that we have to save a life, I think we 
have to make sure that our staff are properly trained, that if 
you pull the trigger -- 

SENATOR AYALA: What is it you need to train your 
staff for? 

MR. PRUITT: You need to be able to train the 
staff into the basics of when to shoot and not to shoot. 

SENATOR AYALA: Common sense. 

MR. PRUITT: Well, to some extent it is, but if 
you have several fights going down on your yard at the same 
time, and it appears that maybe half of those are fist fights, 
and one over in the corner is an inmate with a weapon, and he's 
attempting to stab another inmate, you're going to have to be 
able to, on a split second, make a decision as to who you're 
going to shoot. ' ~ 

And we don't always hit who we aim for. That's 
the problem in the system. We can only give training, and we 
can only tell staff that, when faced with the right set of 
circumstances, we're saying that you may shoot to stop the 
activity that is going on. And to the extent that some of our 
individuals do not -- have not been involved in any prior 
shootings, this is a first incident they may have been involved 
in, you may have some errors made. 

But I think that the message that we send to the 


violent criminals in our system is that we will deal with force 
upon other inmates and staff if we have to. 

But I do not think, when I look at the volume of 
people and the number of violent criminals in our system, the 
number who have been classified as Level II, Level III, Level 
IV, that proportionately that California is not -- that 
California isn't doing what it needs to do in order to not only 
keep down number of shootings, but we're doing whatever we can 
do look beyond that to new technology, coming up with different 
ways of dealing with inmate violence. 

And we're not dependent upon the gun to manage 
the disruptions in the institutions. We have various committees 
that review the technology as it is being developed. We have 
wardens who take a look at those new weapons. And I am positive 
that this Department is moving ahead to look to other 
alternatives . 

SENATOR AYALA: The Department spends about $5-9 
million a month on over-time. How does your prison rate? What 
is it costing the taxpayers in your prison for over-time? 

MR. PRUITT: Senator, the amount of over-time 
that is spent at my institution varies. If you look -- 

SENATOR AYALA: I know that, but what's yours? I 
know it varies from prison to prison, but what is it in your 

MR. PRUITT: Well, the over-time, I can give you 
the amount each month that is spent on over-time. 

SENATOR AYALA: Give the rough estimate on a 
monthly basis. 


MR. PRUITT: A monthly basis for custody 
over-time, I'm spending approximately $150,000. 


MR. PRUITT: Yes, sir. 

SENATOR AYALA: Okay, thank you. I have no more 
questions, Mr. Chairman. 

SENATOR LEWIS: Senator Hughes. 

SENATOR HUGHES: What's your views on 
alternatives to incarceration, and which one do you feel is the 
most successful? If so, why so? 

MR. PRUITT: Well, my views are that the state is 
doing quite a bit, both at the county level and the state level, 
to look for alternatives before state prison is utilized by the 
judges . 

If you look at L.A. County and number of programs 
that divert individuals out of the state prison system, and to 
the extent that that county has brought considerable pressure on 
the Sheriff to, perhaps, send more people to state prison, I 
think what that is telling us is that we've pretty much maxed 
out some of our alternative programs. 

To the extent that a great number of individuals 
come to the prison system because of drugs, and that number can 
be anywhere from 70-80 percent of inmates coming into the system 
have some form of drug problem, it is how do we divert those 
individuals into programs to not only prevent them from coming 
to prison, but to deal with recidivism when they are paroled? A 
great number of them are coming back for drug problems. 

We do know that drug programs to be effective are 


very expensive. That those programs which tend to track 
individuals for long periods of time after they leave the 
institution, that can bring them back into some form of program 
on the outside, can you continue to work with them in those 
programs? We know that those programs can be very 
successful . 

SENATOR HUGHES: What percentage, would you 
think, of your inmate population are drug addicts? And what 
kind of rehab program do you have in your institution so that 
they're not having horrible withdrawal and other kinds of 
bizarre behaviors because of not utilizing drugs? 

MR. PRUITT: I can only give you the overall 
statistics on drug use among inmates. And as I had indicated, 
it ranges anywhere from 70-80 percent of those coming to the 
system have significant drug problems. 

Those that are actually addicted to narcotics, I 
can't give you a figure on that number. I would say that it's a 
significantly smaller number of the overall drug problems 
involved addicts. 

What we do at North Kern is to take a look at how 
drugs are coming to the institution. I do have addicts in my 
general population. This is a Level III. These are the inmates 
who actually stay at the institution, although this is a 
reception center, and we program them to get out and try to be 
successful. They will get tar heroin in the mail that comes 
in. It will come in through visitors and possibly a few cases, 
hopefully very small number, through staff. 

And to the extent that you can intercept those 


drugs coming into the system, certainly you prevent another 
addict from getting a fix, but that doesn't change the fact that 
they're going to keep trying. And they're going to return to 
their addiction when they get out of the institution. 

SENATOR HUGHES: You said they can get drugs 
through mail? 

MR. PRUITT: That's correct. 

SENATOR HUGHES: You don't inspect the mail that 
comes to your prison? 

MR. PRUITT: We absolutely do. We fluoroscope 
the mail. We open the mail and look inside of the mail. 

But to give you an example of how surreptitiously 
this is, is that in one particular Christmas card that came 
through, someone had cut the back side of the card open and had 
inserted a circular piece of tar heroin into that card and 
sealed it back up, so that you'd have to look very carefully on 
the scope in order to pick up this small dot of material. And 
to the extent that you have other printing and other drawings on 
the card, it makes it a little difficult to pick up, but we were 
successful in doing that. 

We monitor telephone calls, and we overhear 
conversations between inmates, their spouses and friends 
conspiring to bring drugs into the institution. We use dogs to 
sniff out drugs, including the mail. So, we're doing quite a 
bit, but no matter what we do, it still gets into the 

SENATOR HUGHES: What is your policy, what do you 
do at your institution when you find a staff person involved at 


any level in passing these drugs? What is the procedure? 

MR. PRUITT: The procedure is to initiate an 
investigation, and at the closure of that investigation you 
determine, based on the amount of proof that's available, as to 
what action you're going to take. 

The general penalty for this would be dismissal. 

SENATOR HUGHES: I would imagine that these are 
all civil servants, and so they have a certain amount of 
protection, don't they, in terms of the civil service status? 
What is the hearing process? 

MR. PRUITT: That's correct, and to give you a 
typical example, if I as a warden recommend dismissal of an 
individual, and it is concurred with with our Director, and that 
penalty is carried out. The individual the dismissed. He's 
entitled to a hearing before the State Personnel Board. 

At that time, the individual can call in 
witnesses, be represented by his attorney or any other 
individual that he so chooses, and then it's a matter of the 
administrative law judge deciding, just like any other court on 
a matter of the weight of the evidence as to whether or not the 
Department's dismissal would be upheld. 

SENATOR HUGHES: I understand there was a 1993 
study that revealed that 65 percent of the inmate population had 
a literacy level below fifth grade reading. Of that, half the 
population, some of them were at actually at a fourth grade 
reading level. 

What kinds of reading programs do you have at 
your institution, and how successful are they? And how do you 


motivate your inmates to attend these? 

MR. PRUITT: Well, we mandate that inmates either 
participate in work programs or education. T^d 92 percent of my 
population are doing either of the two. 

If you do not read at the ninth grade level, 
you're mandatorily put into a class in order to improve your 
reading skills. 

We have a literacy program that has been 
commended twice in the last two years for the quality of the 
program as far as being able to help the inmates improve upon 
their reading skills. 

And I think if you go to one of these classes and 
hand out diplomas to the inmates, you really see sometimes for 
the first time that there's something that says to them that you 
can accomplish this. It helps their self-esteem. 

And to the extent that we also train tutors in 
the program, we also set them up so that when they get out of 
the institution, that they can become involved in 
community-based programs to do the same thing. 

Beyond that, we have the lifestyle program in 
which we not only deal with their literacy, writing problems, 
but we introduce everyday types of circumstances that an inmate 
would normally be involved in on the street, at the street 
level. How to go about applying for a job; how to apply for a 
driver's license; how to interview for a job; and how to set up 
your own housekeeping, create a budget, these types of things, 
so that it is more meaningful to them. 

SENATOR HUGHES: How long is the waiting list to 


get into your education program, say, a reading program? 

MR. PRUITT: Right now, I do not believe that we 
have a waiting list for that program. 

SENATOR HUGHES: How do you really motivate? Do 
you think that the average inmate would say, well I'd rather 
learn how to read than to go out and do manual labor. 

How do you really motivate someone to go and 
learn how to read? It's kind of embarrassing to be adult and to 
admit to anyone that you really cannot read. 

What is your staff responsibility, and what do 
you help them do, or assist them in to see that more of these 
people become literate? 

MR. PRUITT: I think there are several things 
that we have done and will continue to do. 

By using, in one of the classes, using inmates 
who have been taught to be tutors, I think the inmates in some 
cases are more receptive to one of their peers talking them into 
attending the program because they're not challenged in front of 
the rest of the class. You can go at the pace that the inmate 
is capable of moving forward with, so you don't have the 
competition that you're going to be left behind. 

Some inmates need to spend more time than others, 
and especially if you have inmates who have a second language, 
and we're trying to teach them to read English. It becomes more 
of a challenge to do this. 

So, we mandate that either you have a certain 
reading level, or you will sit in a class and go through your 
academic classroom work. And reading, of course, is only one of 



And the computer-aided program is another tool 
that we use because, to the extent that is interactive, it moves 
forward at the same pace as the inmate, he's again not pressured 
by a peer who's sitting there. It helps them to learn in a 
different way. 

SENATOR HUGHES: Do you think computer programs 
themselves are self-motivating and intriguing to inmates who may 
have never had an experience with a computer before? 

MR. PRUITT: Absolutely. 

SENATOR HUGHES: Well, you know, how do you think 
CDC's work in education programs in general could be improved? 
If you were empowered to make some definitive, and you are 
empowered to make suggestions for the improvement of these 
programs, what suggestions would you make? 

MR. PRUITT: Well, I think that to the extent 
that we can mandate that the inmates sit in the classroom 
sometime, that it helps to at least set a standard. 

But I think the Department is spending a great 
deal of money with the educational programs that we have. And 
to be able to expand those, obviously, requires us to come back 
to the Legislature and say that we need to create some 
additional programs. 

But I do think that computers may be under 
utilized to teach different skills. And since we are now 
involved in the Computers for Schools Program, we certainly can 
expand the number of automated programs we have within the 
Department to allow inmates, perhaps, to do more self-study, to 


make modules available to them. 

But to the extent that you create additional 
programs like this, you also create additional costs in custody 
staff having to supervise those programs. 

I agree, we can do more. We can take advantage 
of more of the tools that are available to us today, but we 
certainly realize that they cost. 

SENATOR HUGHES: Mr. Pruitt, you had indicated 
previously that sometimes other prisoners are the very ones that 
motivate another inmate to go and take courses in reading to 
help to improve their skills or other educational skills. 

How do you screen or monitor the other skills 
that they might be sharing, the criminal skills? This has 
always been my great fear of having any friend or relative of 
mine sentenced to time in prison, that they might get more than 
the educational skills that they need to make it in the real 

And do you have anyway of monitoring what one 
inmate teaches another one, maybe even under the guise of 
educational instruction? 

MR. PRUITT: It goes back to my previous 
statement, that if you set up a particular program that might be 
somewhat dependent on inmates to also augment training, you have 
to have people monitoring the program. 

SENATOR HUGHES : How do you know that another guy 
isn't helping his cellmate to learn how do you really hold up a 
bank successfully and not shed any blood, or how do you hide a 
weapon? How do you know they're really talking about the lesson 


that they planned, or the work project that they're doing 

Do you have any way to monitor? 

MR. PRUITT: Only by close supervision, and 
that's the name of the game, is that inmates have to be closely 
supervised. You never let inmates take over to an extent that 
they have liberty to have any influence in an institution. 

To the extent that they're motivated to be 
tutors, then we utilize them to tutor other inmates. But any 
program like this has to be closely supervised so that we know 
what is transpiring. 

SENATOR HUGHES: Does that mean that you have to 
have somebody listening to them if you see them over in the 
corner of a room talking a lot? Are you sure that their 
conversation is productive or disruptive? How do you have eyes 
and ears everywhere? It's an impossible situation. 

MR. PRUITT: Those conversations that you speak 
of take place every day inside of institutions. They happen on 
the yards. They happen inside of the cells with the 
cellmates. And they happen in any other grouping where inmates 
come together. 

The reality is that they did do happen. 

SENATOR HUGHES: In other words, you can't really 
stop them? 

MR. PRUITT: To the extent that you are not in a 
position to overhear, or you intercept some correspondence going 
outside of the institution that would indicate that you have 
this type of activity, the higher level, for example, forming 


conspiracies to commit crimes inside the institution, or when 
you get out, to form groups to continue crimes on the outside, 
you deal with that information. 

But at the level that you're talking about, it is 
a reality. It goes on in every institution. 

SENATOR HUGHES: Do you particularly monitor 
those inmates who demonstrate leadership ability, because you 
would know as well as anybody that there's some charismatic 
people who can often lead other people down the garden path, 
maybe not in the direction out of the institution, but in the 
direction how to get around in the institution. 

Do your guards then come to you and say, well, I 
know Mr. Brulte is in cell H with Mr. Lockyer, and we need to 
watch them. 

[Laughter. ] 

SENATOR HUGHES: No, I'm not being facetious. 
No, I'm just wondering, do you really watch these people who you 
know have leadership ability, and what kind of influence they 
might have on the other inmates? Especially someone who is 
younger and less experienced than some of the other inmates who 
are new comers to the area. 

I'm really serious about this. This always 
concerns me about when a first-time offender goes to prison, how 
much real education are they going to get from other criminals? 

MR. PRUITT: Well, the realities are. Senator, 
that it does happen. To the extent that you teach staff that 
you need to mingle with the inmates, you need to know what is 
going on, to the extent that there are inmates who will inform 


on other inmates, it's a matter of communicating within the 
prison in order to control that kind of activity that you're 
speaking of. 

SENATOR HUGHES: Do you give rewards to the 
people who rat on the others? 

MR. PRUITT: Generally — 

SENATOR HUGHES: I know there are rewards and 
punishments everywhere. 

What kinds of incentives do you give people to 
bring you the information that you need, or you're not at 
liberty to tell? But there are incentives; are there not? 

MR. PRUITT: Generally, that type of reward will 
come to one-on-one that you get from the correctional officer to 
the inmates. 

To the extent in a there are inmates who provide 
substantial information on major crimes, there are other ways of 
dealing with them in terms of putting a laudatory report into 
their personnel file, so that when that C file is reviewed by 
the Board of Prison Terms, they have some way of seeing that 
this individual is making an effort to deal with criminal 
activity at his own level. 

But you cannot -- you cannot have a quid pro quo 
type of situation where you are buying information, because then 
the inference becomes, are inmates manufacturing information for 
the purposes of developing a better relationship for 
themselves. So, there's a balance that we have to take. 

But certainly, there's nothing wrong with 
commending an inmate in his C file for having brought forth 


information that led to discovering these kinds of things going 
on. . 



SENATOR AYALA: One more question. 

Regarding the Man's Advisory Council, MAC, which 
is comprised of a group of inmates elected by a general inmate 
population vote, do these people get any special treatment like 
they do in the YTS? They call them juice wards, and they move 
around a little bit more than the regular rank and file 
population of the prison. 

MR. PRUITT: No, they do not. To the extent that 
we rely on them on some occasions to communicate with the 
general inmate population, the most that we will do is provide 
them with access to those inmates so that they can get a message 
through relative to dealing with a threat of disruption in the 

We do not provide any special privileges to 
them. Many of them are given pay numbers for their full-time 
involvement in that program. But to the extent that they're 
also actively involved in reviewing, for example, the list of 
programs that are available to inmates, meeting with the inmates 
and coming back to management with some recommendations, what we 
try to teach is good government among the inmates. 

To the extent that we all know that you have to 
give them some latitude, and you don't go overboard in rewarding 
them, it's basically a situation where we are very careful not 
to reward inmates. 


SENATOR AYALA: I'm sure you're aware that the 
inmates accused of murdering that lady at YTS was a juice ward. 
He had access a lot of areas rank and file inmates didn't have. 
He was a convicted murderer. 

You allow the group to select their own people, 
even though that may be the worst criminal in that institution 
to be a member of MAC? Don't you have any discretion who serves 
on that? 

MR. PRUITT: Absolutely, and you find that some 
of your more influential inmates do not want to be put out front 
with MAC. Many of them are there because they have exceptional 
communications and writing skills, verbal. 

SENATOR AYALA: Most of them are reluctant to 
accept that responsibility? 

MR. PRUITT: That's correct. Many of what you 
would call inmates of influence do not want that. 

To the extent that I as a warden must have a 
system in place to identify inmates who appear to be gaining the 
type of influence that you're talking about, having unlimited 
access, passes to go about the institution, then what I'm doing 
is mismanaging the inmate population. And I'm setting myself 
up to, perhaps, an inmate who's going to escape, or an inmate 
who's going to acquire information that will be detrimental to 
staff. And it's something that we all guard against. 

SENATOR AYALA: At YTS Chino, the Superintendent 
selected this convicted murderer. He was accused of rape, too, 
but they dropped that because he was convicted of murder. 

He had access to a lot of areas that the rank and 



file inmates or wards don't have. That's how he happened to be 
at the place where he murdered this lady. 

Why would anyone select a murderer, convicted 
murderer, of any leadership position? 

MR. PRUITT: I would hope that that situation 
doesn't occur in the Department of Corrections. It hasn't 

And I realize that your question is something 
that you know I don't have the answer to, but to the extent that 
we know that it has happened, and that as managers, we all need 
to take the lesson, reassess our own operations -- 

SENATOR AYALA: Do you have veto power over their 
selection? Do you as the warden have veto power over the 
selection of that — 

MR. PRUITT: Absolutely. 

SENATOR AYALA: — member of MAC? Can you deny 
the people that the inmates want if you feel he's a risk? 

MR. PRUITT: Absolutely. We not only do, but we 
have obligation to do so. 

SENATOR AYALA: Thank you. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Other questions from Members? 
Is there any opposition testimony present? 

I know there are various associations and groups 
that are supportive. If there is no opposition present, I would 
ask the supporters to perhaps forbear and let us move our agenda 
along by soliciting a motion on confirmation, if Members are 
ready to move along. 



CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Senator Brulte does enter that 
motion. Call did roll, if you would. 

SECRETT^Y WEBB: Senator Ayala. 

Ayala Aye. Senator Brulte. 


Brulte Aye. Senator Hughes. 


Hughes Aye. Senator Lewis. 

Four to zero. 

Senator Lockyer. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: It's four to zero, and we'll 
leave it on call so that Senator Lewis can vote when he gets 

Good luck. Warden. We wish you well and hope to 
not see you until you're reassigned to another prison. 

MR. PRUITT: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[Later, Senator Lewis added his 
Aye vote, making the final vote 
5-0 for confirmation.] 
CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Is Galaza on call? Then add 
me and make it five zero. 

[Thereupon the Rules Committee 
acted upon legislative items.] 
CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Natalie Arena, come on up. 
I point out that somehow we catch you student 


representatives, since you're only appointed for one year, kind 
of toward the end of your term. It's almost an afterthought. 
It's not meant to be, because we want you to be confirmed. 

MS. ARENA: I do, too. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: But this place is kind of like 
an airport, with the airplanes circling and waiting to land, and 
we don't get to them for several months. 

You do go to Barstow High? 

MS. ARENA: I'm a senior at Barstow High 
School . 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Then your term ends in August? 

MS. ARENA: Actually July 31. Next month will be 
my last meeting. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Do you know who your successor 
will be? 

MS. ARENA: They're interviewing the final three 
finalists tomorrow. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Welcome to an absolutely 
cooler part of the state today. 

MS. ARENA: I agree. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Any questions from Members? 

I think it's not the same at the Board of 
Education. One term is all you get. 

Did you enjoy it? 

MS. ARENA: Very much so. It's been such a 
wonderful experience. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: What are you going to do next 


MS. ARENA: I'll be going to the University of 
San Diego. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Definitely a cooler climate. 

MS. ARENA: Yes, much cooler than Barstow. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: I saw your School 
Superintendent last week when I happened to be in the Riverside 
area, and he had just come out of 118, I think it was. 

MS. ARENA: Sounds about right. 

SENATOR HUGHES: Ms. Arena, it must have been a 
wonderful experience. 

What advice would you give to the next person 
that succeeds you on this board? What did you learn? Did you 
make any mistakes that you'd like this person not to make, or 
any other kind of advice would you give? 

MS. 7VRENA: I don't know about mistakes, but I 
have thought about things that I wish I had known before I 
started out my term. 

And the very first thing is, I don't know if 
you've ever seen our agenda. It's about this big. When I first 
got the agenda, and then all the supplemental material, and 
additional mailings, I was really overwhelmed, and I didn't know 
where to start. And I didn't really know how to decode the 
agenda . 

So, that's what I'd show them how to do, is let 
them know what a consent calendar means, and what's routine, 
that sort of thing. Give them more of an idea of what they're 
jumping into. 

SENATOR HUGHES: And you did, of course, say it's 


not as overwhelming as you think? 

MS. ARENA: No, it all fell into place after 
about two meetings. I finally got the hang of it. 

SENATOR HUGHES: Thank you very much for serving. 

I'd like to move this confirmation, if there's no 



CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: All right. Are there 

Okay, we have a motion by Senator Hughes to 
confirm. Why don't you call the roll. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Senator Ayala. 


Ayala Aye. Senator Brulte. 

Brulte Aye. Senator Hughes. 

Hughes Aye. Senator Lewis. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Lewis Aye. Senator Lockyer. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Lockyer Aye. Five to zero. 
CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Thank you, and thanks for your 
service. And good luck at least for the remainder of the term. 
We'll probably see you back on the regular board sometime in the 
future . 

MS. T^ENA: We'll see, thanks. 

[Thereupon the Rules Committee 


acted upon other agenda items.] 
CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: We've got another major item 
to deal with, which is Mr. Bishop's confirmation. 

When the meeting began an hour and a half ago, I 
think it was our intention to deny confirmation. And the 
principle reason for that are the inadequate performance of the 
Department with respect to regulating health plans and HMOs in 

Now I have just been handed a press release from 
the Governor's Office appointing an ombudsperson for the 
Department, which is at least one of the issues that was a 

TVnd so, we have until the 23rd, Thursday. I'd 
suggest we should hold this to a Rules meeting off the Floor 
just before the session so we'll have a chance to reevaluate the 
latest developments. If that's agreeable, we'll hold that until 
Thursday morning for those that have an interest in that issue. 

[Thereupon. This portion of the 
Senate Rules Committee hearing was 
terminated at approximately 3:38 P.M.] 
--ooOoo — 


I, EVELYN J. MIZAK, a Shorthand Reporter of the State 
of California/ do hereby certify: 

That I am a disinterested person herein; that the 
foregoing transcript of the Senate Rules Committee hearing was 
reported verbatim in shorthand by me, Evelyn J. Mizak, and 
thereafter transcribed into typewriting. 

I further certify that I am not of counsel or 
attorney for any of the parties to said hearing, nor in any way 
interested in the outcome of said hearing. 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 
Q_i^Z. day of ryi^^--^ , 1997. 


326-R - 

Additional copies of this publication may be purchased for $3.50 per copy 1 

(includes shipping and handling) plus current California sales tax. 

Senate Publications 

1020 N Street, Room B-53 

Sacramento, CA 95814 


Make checks payable to SENATE RULES COMMITTEE. 
Please include Stock Number 325-R when ordering. 






jUt\i - 2 1997 



ROOM 3191 


THURSDAY, MAY 22, 1997 
10:23 A.M. 





ROOM 3191 


THURSDAY, MAY 22, 1997 
10:23 A.M. 

Reported by 

Evelyn J. Mizak 
Shorthand Reporter 









GREG SCHMIDT, Executive Officer 

PAT WEBB, Committee Secretary 

NANCY MICHEL, Consultant on Governor's Appointments 

WADE TEASDALE, Consultant to Vice Chair 


KEITH P. BISHOP, Commissioner 
Department of Corporations 



Proceedings 1 

Governor's Appointees; 

KEITH P. BISHOP, Commissioner 

Department of Corporations 1 

Questions by CHAIRMAN LOCKYER re: 

Taking Credit for Predecessor ' s Work 1 

Comparison of Record on Fines 1 

Questions by SENATOR AYALA re: 

Actions Initiated Prior to 

Taking Office 2 

Perception that DOC Isn't Fining 

Enough or Collecting Enough 3 

Questions by SENATOR BRULTE re: 

Authority to Make Decisions on 

Actions Initiated by Predecessor 4 

Questions by SENATOR AYALA re: 

Proper Division of Government for 

Regulation of HMOs 5 

Statements by CHAIRMAN LOCKYER re: 

Appointment of Ombudsperson 5 

Questions by CHAIRMAN LOCKYER re: 

Role and Responsibilities 

of Ombudsperson 6 

Consumer Frustration over Confidentiality 7 

Need for Timely Public Hearings on 

Significant Material Changes 7 

Questions by SENATOR HUGHES re: 

Plans to Help Speed up Process 8 

Suggestions to MR. PARRA to Help 

Consumers 8 



Statements by CHAIRMAN LOCKYER re: 

Complaint from Family in Norco 11 

Dissatisfaction with Department's 
•* Follow-through 12 

^ Motion to Confirm 12 

^ Committee Action 12 

"^ Termination of Proceedings 12 

^ Certificate of Reporter 13 




— ooOoo — 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Mr. Bishop, come on up, if 
you would. 

Mr. Bishop, thank you for enduring a rather 
lengthy confirmation process. There's been considerable public 
discussion, so I don't know that it's necessary to add to that. 

There are a few issues that Members, during the 
course of the last couple of weeks, have inquired about or 
commented "on. So, I think it maybe would be helpful just to 
clarify those. 

He can certainly speak for himself, but one that 
Senator Ayala and I both were trying to figure out the correct 
chronology has to do with some of the fines and various 
penalties levied against health plans that were not in 
compliance with the regs or law. 

There was a suggestion, I think it was by some 
reporter or maybe one of the critics, I'm not sure which, that 
you were kind of taking credit for what the prior Commissioners 
might have laid the foundation for or done with respect to 
fines . 

It was confusing, and so I thought I'd ask you 
for a little clearer explanation of those matters, how your 
record compares, your own record with respect to these matters, 
how it would compare to prior, your predecessors? 

MR. BISHOP: I.--certainly don't want to take 
credit for anything that's not — should be mine. 

My record, I believe, is that I have levied more 

1 money and collected more money in fines than any previous 

2 Commissioner in terms of health care plans. 

3 The one issue I think in particular that raised 
A the question was the case of Carly Christie. That was a case 

5 that was initiated by former Commissioner Mendoza. He left 

6 before the case came to conclusion. 

7 When I come on board, the administrative law 

8 judge rendered her proposed decision, and then it was up to me 

9 to either accept that decision or reject it. 

10 At that point, I reviewed the complete record and 

11 decided to sustain the ALJ's decision, in which case then there 

12 was a lot of press, obviously, accompanied with that decision 

13 which -- it did occur on my watch. 

14 SENATOR AYALA: Is that the only time that that 

15 occurred, where something came to fruition during your term that 

16 was initiated before your term? 

17 MR. BISHOP: I'm sure there are many things that 

18 carried over, but in terms of -- including enforcement 

19 matters -- but many of the enforcement matters that I have 

20 levied fines on were all initiated under my term, including the 

21 fines against 80 plans for violation of the 1-800 number 

22 disclosure. The recent action against Western Dental was all 

23 investigated and the action was filed — 

24 SENATOR AYALA: You may recall in my office, you 

25 said just what you just said now, that you have collected more 

26 as a result of lawsuits from people out there breaking the law 

27 than all the other directors combined. 

23 MR. BISHOP: For the last ten years. 

SENATOR AYALA: Then in Rules Committee, someone 
saySy sure but he didn't initiate any of them. And you didn't 
respond to that. 

MR. BISHOP: Well, I initiated 80 actions for the 
1-800 number, and collected over $600,000. I initiated an 
action against Blue Cross and collected $100,000 on that, and 
recently initiated an action against Western Dental for -- and 
we haven't won that one yet -- but it's seeking $3 million. All 
of those were — 

SENATOR AYALA: I kind of felt that you didn't 
lie to me, but you didn't tell me the whole story, either. 

You might have collected more than anybody else, 
but how many of those did you initiate? 

MR. BISHOP: I think even of the ones that 
started, it's more than everybody else. 

SENATOR AYALA: There's some misinformation out 
there someplace. 

MR. BISHOP: Today, I can tell you that there's 
more than twice the number of open enforcement cases than there 
were a year ago. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Does open mean you can't get 

to them? 


MR. BISHOP: No. They're open, and we've started 

SENATOR AYALA: The perception is that you're not 
collecting or fining them enough. That's the perception. 
Whether it's true or not, sometimes perceptions can be stronger 
than the truth, I think. 

1 MR. BISHOP: I think the facts are that I have 

2 been very aggressive in bringing actions against plans, and have 

3 brought more actions and collected more money under my watch. 

4 SENATOR BRULTE : Mr. Bishop, some of your critics 

5 have suggested that some of these actions were initiated, but 

6 the decisions, you are contending the decisions were made on 

7 your watch? You had the authority to make the decision? 

8 MR. BISHOP: The 800 number cases — 

9 SENATOR BRULTE: Not the ones you initiated. 

10 On those that you did not initiate, ultimately, 

11 when the administrative law judge made their finding, you could 

12 have sustained it or rejected it? 

13 MR. BISHOP: Correct. 

14 SENATOR BRULTE: And your critics aren't giving 

15 you any credit for sustaining that. They're simply suggesting 

16 that you didn't initiate it. 

17 Let me just ask you a question. If you had 

18 rejected the administrative law judge's rulings, do you think 

19 your critics would have said that the previous commissioners 

20 were responsible for that? 

21 MR. BISHOP: No. 

22 I'd also like to just point out that in making 

23 that decision, I had to look at the full record. And I did not 

24 simply accept a decision without a comprehensive review of the 

25 record, which included reading 20 volumes of testimony on that 

26 case. 

27 SENATOR AYALA: I have another question that's 

26 maybe not a fair question to ask you, but do you think that the 1 


HMOs are under the right division of government, Department of 
Corporations? Should they be with the Department of Consumer 
Affairs of somewhere else? 

Why is it under the Department of Corporations 
when it's a health problem? 

MR. BISHOP: I think it is under the right 
division of government. 

But I think the question really should be, how 
should government regulate health plans? And that will lead you 
to what department or division of government should regulate it. 

The decision to put it in the Department of 
Corporations was made in 1975 by the Legislature. I think it 
was based upon the strong concerns at the time about the 
economic viability of health plans. 

SENATOR AYALA: Thank you. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Well, I only wanted to mention 
with respect to the appointment of the ombudsperson, I think 
that there's a considerable agreement about the need to fill 
that position. 

I have yet to hear anyone in the consumer 
advocacy world say anything complimentary about this particular 
choice. So, I don't know Mr. Parra. I can see why someone 
would worry because he was an employee of the Hospital 
Association, and there might be a belief that he will not be an 
active consumer advocate. 

I hope you have an understanding with him about 
the nature of his job and what the responsibilities entail with 
respect to that role. If there's anything you can tell us about 

1 that that would clarifying, that might be helpful. 

2 MR. BISHOP: Yes, I have worked with Mr. Parra 

3 for the last year. And he is -- and observed him in the 1-800 

4 number process. He has been really the person who has trouble- 

5 shooted many of the problems that I've identified with the 

6 operation of our Consumer Services Unit and the 1-800 number. 

7 I've also observed Mr. Parra in dealing with 

8 individual consumers, and I know that he has a great deal of 

9 concern, respect and understanding for the needs of consumers in 

10 this process. 

11 And there is simply no person in the State of 

12 California today who knows more about our 800 number than Joe 

13 Parra. There's no one in the State of California today who 

14 knows more about the operation of our 800 number than Joe Parra. 

15 And I have complete confidence in him to serve 

16 the needs of Californians in accessing the Department of 

17 Corporations' 1-800 number in the complaint processes. 

18 CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: So, in terms of the 

19 responsibilities of the ombudsperson, it's your view that he 

20 understands and is sympathetic to the role as a consumer 

21 advocate? 

22 MR. BISHOP: I've seen it in action already, and 

23 I've had many, many conversations over the last several weeks 

24 with him about his role as ombudsperson. And I think it's 

25 really important that he will be helping people negotiate what 

26 can be sometimes a complicated and confusing process. 

27 CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: In that respect, one of the 

28 things that sort of comes up regularly is, people feeling like 

because the confidentiality of records prevents them from 
reviewing a file, their own file, they feel frustrated about not 
understanding why there was a decision made to close the file, 
or to prosecute, or whatever. 

It may well be that we need to all think a bit 
about that law and try to help at least, if nothing else, 
explain to consumers why it is that you think it's in their best 
interests to not have a whole file released, or whatever. I 
hope we can continue to talk about that. 

MR. BISHOP: I would look forward to doing that. 
There are a number of competing concerns at work, and it's -- 
you know, balancing those concerns is sometimes difficult. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: I understand. You mentioned 
those before. 

The other issue, just to mention, is the notion 
of having timely public hearings on significant material 
changes. I know you've made a commitment, and you've already 
begun to do those more routinely than had been done in the past. 
I simply continue to encourage you to do that. 

I'm tending to vote for your confirmation. I 
think you have tried to manage a department with multiple 
responsibilities that often are very difficult in a 
conscientious way. And I appreciate your being so forthcoming 
with Members of the Legislature in helping us understand these 
responsibilities, and how your Department works. 

So, I wish you well. 

SENATOR HUGHES: I have a question. 

As you continue on with your difficult task, what 


1 are your immediate plans for unraveling the very complicated 

2 process that you could tell us succinctly now? 

3 MR, BISHOP: I think the appointment of Joe Parra 

4 is real important to getting consumers better educated about the 

5 role of the Department in handling complaints. That's one area 

6 I view as a very important part of his new job, which is 

7 explaining what we do, and explaining how to access and use us 

8 successfully. 

9 And I think that getting the 1-800 number out 

10 there, getting the consumers to recognize the Department as a 

11 resource to them is very key. 

12 Another area is getting more information out, and 

13 we've got a Web page now, and I will want to upgrade that. 

14 We've got our complaint form on the Web page now for consumers 

15 to get information, both about how to file complaints and also 

16 about plans. 

17 I have a hearing next week on a dental quality of 

18 care issue. It's a public hearing down in Los Angeles. And 

19 that's an area that's been of great concern to me, because many 

20 consumers have had problems with their dental — with certain of 

21 their dental providers. 

22 SENATOR HUGHES: How do you handle those 

23 consumers who are so very, very frustrated that they feel an 

24 1-800 number merely delays their request? How are you going to 

25 advise them? Because some individuals have indicated that 

26 they've called this 800 number many times and received no 

27 personal satisfaction, and they don't like being automated. 

28 What suggestions would you give to Mr. Parra? 

We're talking about health care; we're talking about a person's 
life, unlike whether you're going to fix my car that was damaged 
or something like that. 

How do you get the human element, or how do you 
perceive of getting the human element taken care of in your 

MR. BISHOP: It's — I think having the 
ombudsperson will help address that human element. We do get 
thousands of calls. Since we initiated our enforcement action, 
the number of calls that have come into our 1-800 number about 
doubled. They went from 3, 000-plus to just about 7,000-plus in 
February. So, as our word gets out there about the 1-800 
number, we're getting more and more calls. 

Joe obviously will be helpful in addressing the 
cases where people are having problems with the system. 

The resources that I've been working on adding to 
speed up the time -- I think a lot of the frustration, at least 
in my estimation, has been that the process has taken too long. 
That's why, over the last year, I've worked to speed up the 
process by getting additional medical consultants. We have more 
than — we've got a 700 percent increase in medical consultants 
available to us today. 

Shortening the time for plans to respond to 
complaints, I've also talked, to many, many of the CEOs of the 
large health plans and told them that this is the grievance 
process, and the complaint process is a very, very high priority 
with me. And that they need to understand that the process does 
take too long, and we all have to work, both the DOC and the 


1 plans, to speeding up the process. 

2 Some of it's mechanical, like putting in high 

3 speed FAX machines, which we've done to FAX the information back 

4 and forth to the plans. Shortening the time period. Getting 

5 more experts available to us, more legal counsel. 

6 And we've succeeded. We've cut the backlog by 75 

7 percent. We're still not where we should be because there's 

8 still a number of complaints that are over of 60 days old. 

9 SENATOR HUGHES: But the problem I see here is 

10 that we're not talking about having your car fixed, your car 

11 that was damaged. 

12 We're talking about having your body fixed so 

13 that your body is able to function. And we're talking about, in 

14 many cases, preserving the quality of life that people have 

15 left. 

16 So, I don't know how you deal with that kind of 

17 pressure compassionately. 

18 MR. BISHOP: That is, I think, an important 

19 aspect because it is, as you say, people's health is very 

20 fundamental to their whole life. It's something that I 

21 recognize every day when I read the complaints. 

22 I believe my staff does feel that commitment. In 

23 talking to them, they recognize that these are real people, that 

24 they can't wait around forever to find out an answer to their 

25 problem. If it's, say, a problem without a network coverage, 
2 6 most people can't afford, you know, 120-day turnaround in 

27 getting that claim paid because they don't have the money 

28 otherwise. 


So, I think there is that understanding within 
the staff of the Consumer Services Unit. 

But we are dealing with thousands of calls every 
month and hundreds of complaints. 


CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Mr. Bishop, there's just one 
example, just for purposes of the record, that I'll cite. We've 
had a number of communications of this sort. 

This is from a family in Norco. I think that's 
Senator Ayala's domain. No, it's in Senator Haynes' district. 

Anyhow, the family writes to you last November. 
You respond immediately with an appropriate letter expressing 
your condolences on the loss of their child, and as a parent, 
understanding how difficult that is. 

They had requested someone to look into the 
circumstances regarding the daughter's death. 

And then in March, Mr. Parra sends the letter 
that, basically, is a bureaucratic brush off. It's cold, 
saying: we've looked, too bad. 

So, then the family wrote to me yesterday, saying 
that Mr. Parra sent them a letter indicating there was 
insufficient evidence to take enforcement action. 

"The Department and particularly Mr. Parra never 
once contacted us. Melody's parents, to discuss any of the facts 
which we had compiled, detailing our experience with the health 
plan leading up to our daughter's death. The investigation by 
the DOC was a travesty of justice for consumers." 

And it goes on. We don't know all the facts 



1 here, but I mention it as an example of dissatisfaction with the 

2 philosophy or follow-through. I'll give you these papers. 

3 Other questions from Members? Senator Lewis. 

4 SENATOR LEWIS: I'd like to move confirmation. 

5 CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Senator Lewis has moved 

6 confirmation. Let's call the roll, please. 

7 SECRETARY WEBB: Senator Ayala. 


Ayala Aye. Senator Brulte. 

Brulte Aye. Senator Hughes. 
Hughes Aye. Senator Lewis. 







15 SECRETARY WEBB: Lewis Aye. Senator Lockyer 


17 SECRETARY WEBB: Lockyer Aye. Five to zero 

18 CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: See, the outcome looks easy, 

19 five to zero. Congratulations 

20 MR. BISHOP: Thank you very much 

21 CHAIRM7\N LOCKYER: We obviously hope to work with 

22 you in collaborative ways in the future 

23 MR. BISHOP: And I look forward to doing so 

24 [Thereupon. This portion of the 

25 Senate Rules Committee hearing was 

26 - terminated at approximately 10:46 A.M.] 

27 --ooOoo-- 



I, EVELYN J. MIZAK, a Shorthand Reporter of the State 
of California/ do hereby certify: 

That I am a disinterested person herein; that the 
foregoing transcript of the Senate Rules Committee hearing was 
reported verbatim in shorthand by me, Evelyn J. Mizak, and 
thereafter transcribed into typewriting. 

I further certify that I am not of counsel or 
attorney for any of the parties to said hearing, nor in any way 
interested in the outcome of said hearing. 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 
C >b?<^ day of ]yU2^ , 1997. 

Shorthand Reporter 


Additional copies of this publication nnay be purchased for $3.00 per copy 
(includes shipping and handling) plus current California sales tax. 

Senate Publications 

1020 N Street, Room B-53 

Sacramento, CA 95814 


Make checks payable to SENATE RULES COMMITTEE. 
Please include Stock Number 327-R when ordering. 






JUL - 9 1997 



ROOM 3191 


WEDNESDAY, MAY 28, 1997 
2:30 RM. 


Reported by 




ROOM 3191 


WEDNESDAY, MAY 28, 1997 
2:30 P.M. 

Evel-yn J. Mizak 
Shorthand Reporter 










GREG SCHMIDT, Executive Officer 

PAT WEBB, Committee Secretary 

NANCY MICHEL, Consultant on Governor's Appointments 

WADE TEASDALE, Consultant to Vice Chair 


California Horse Racing Board 

FRED E. HUMMEL, State Architect 



Proceedings 1 

Governor's Appointees: 


California Horse Racing Board 1 

Background and Experience 1 

Questions by SENATOR HUGHES re: 

Opinion on Placement of Cardrooms 

at Race Tracks, and Operation by 

Publicly Traded Corporations 2 

Increase in Criminal Activity with 

Expanded Gaming 2 

Best Part of Job 2 

Questions by SENATOR LEWIS re: 

Recent Decline in Race Track Attendance 3 

Amount of Time Spent on Enforcement 

Actions 4 

Problems with Illegal Drug Use 4 

Questions by SENATOR AYALA re: 

Effect of Satellite Wagering on 

Attendance 5 

Placement of Cardrooms at Race Tracks 6 

Drug Testing Policies at Tracks 7 

Position on Expansion of Fairplex Track 8 

Motion to Confirm 9 

Committee Action 10 

FRED E. HUMMEL, State Architect 10 

Background and Experience 10 


Questions by SENATOR AYALA re: 

Function of State Architect 11 

Duplication of Architectural Services 
with Mandated State Checking of Plans 
for Schools 12 

Questions by SENATOR BRULTE re: 

Reason Why Local Building Officials 

Do not Check School Plans 16 

Areas Checked in School Plans 16 

Number of Schools Checked in 

Previous Week 17 

Number or Percentage of Plans Rejected 17 

Examples of Major Problems in School 

Plans 18 

Questions by SENATOR AYALA re: 

Average Time to Check School Plan 18 

Possibility of Having Several Different 

Approved Plans for District to Choose 19 

Questions by SENATOR BRULTE re: 

Percentage of Cost which Goes to 

Architect ' s Fees 21 

Economic Incentive for Higher 

Construction Costs 21 

Motion to Confirm 21 

Questions by SENATOR HUGHES re: 

Riley Act and Garrison Act 21 

Frequency of Checks on Older Schools 22 

Systematic Inspections of Schools 

after Earthquakes 22 

Periodic Checks of School Bungalows 2 3 

Length of Time Needed to Check 

Current School Buildings 23 

Committee Action 25 

Termination of Proceedings 25 

Certificate of Reporter 2 6 


SENATOR LEWIS: Beginning today we have 
Mr. Joseph Fenley of the California Horse Racing Board. Please 
come on up. 

Do you have an opening statement? 

MR. FENLEY: Yes, I do. 

Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, Members of the 
Committee. My name is Joseph Fenley, and I seek your support 
for my confirmation to the California Horse Racing Board. 

I was appointed to the Board in November, and 
since then I have thoroughly enjoyed being part of the process 
of improving and updating the regulation of the horse racing 
industry. I look forward to being a part of the same process 
for next three years. 

I recognize that the horse racing industry is one 
of California's most valuable assets, that it generates 
considerable revenue for the state, that it provides thousands 
of jobs to California citizens, that it has a tremendous impact 
on the state's economy. 

Recognizing all this, I want to play a role in 
regulating this industry and ensuring that those jobs and that 
revenue are maximized and protected. 

I bring many strengths to the Board, including 
the confidence and independence gained from building my own 
successful businesses from the ground up. And now that I have 
divested myself from those businesses, I am free to contribute 
my personal time to this effort. 

Thank you. 

SENATOR LEWIS: Any Member of Committee have any 
questions for Mr. Fenley at this time? Senator Hughes. 

SENATOR HUGHES: Do you favor the placement of 
card rooms at race tracks and their operation by a publicly 
traded corporation? 

MR. FENLEY: I've seen that the relationship 
between the card rooms and the handle at race tracks, I've seen 
the handle improve. So, if we were looking at improving just 
the handle, yes, I do favor that. 

SENATOR HUGHES: What do you think about publicly 
traded corporations owning card rooms in other locations? 

MR. FENLEY: Publicly traded corporations, in 
other words, they would be sort of entrepreneurial. 


MR. FENLEY: I think under the rules and 
regulations of the California Horse Racing Board, if they follow 
those guidelines, I don't have a problem with that. 

SENATOR HUGHES: Do you think there's been any 
increase in criminal activities with expanded gambling? 

MR. FENLEY: To the best of my knowledge there 
has not been. 

SENATOR HUGHES: What do you like most about your 

MR. FENLEY: I think it's thrilling. I've been 
around horses all my life. I'm a small thoroughbred owner. I 
see the future as something exciting. I see a development of a 
breeding program in California for Cal-breds. I see the 

potential of the phone betting coming to increase the state 

I see we're having smaller races or fewer races 
with more horses in them. The bettors love that. They don't 
like a lot of races with fewer horses. 

I think just improving the quality and integrity 
of the sport, and being on top of it and making sure that it's 
secure and safe for all the people of California. 

SENATOR LEWIS: In recent years, in terms of 
attendance, horse racing has been somewhat in decline. It seems 
like maybe it's lost favor with some of the public over the 

What do you think can be done to reverse that 

MR. FENLEY: I think a good marketing effort by 
the associations, some incentives. 

There was a day that the Santa Anita had free, 
parking, and ten thousand more people came, things like that. 
But I think there's a lot of competition with Indian gaming, and 
the lotteries, and things like that, and so the decline of the 
dollar -- the pie is splitting up a little bit more. And I 
think the associations, together with the horsemen, have to be 
more creative and innovative in bringing those people back. 

I think another way of doing that is coming up 
new type of bets, parimutuel bets that are exciting for people. 

SENATOR LEWIS: How much of that is based on 
demographic changes, with maybe people that enjoy the sport of 
kings are getting older, and maybe the younger generation hasn't 

really taken to horse racing? 

MR. FENLEY: Well, I couldn't answer that, but I 
think that the trend -- I don't think the attendance has gone 
down. I think the handle's been split up somewhat by the other 
forms of gaming available. 

But demographically, I think if the economy is 
growing, and the population is growing, I think that same 
available thousand people would probably diversify to the other 
forms that are available. 

SENATOR LEWIS: How much of your time is taken up 
with enforcement actions? 

MR. FENLEY: Personally with the Board? We meet 
in executive session after the agenda of the board meeting and 
deal with specific issues that are on appeal from jockeys, other 
issues dealing with the Board. 

SENATOR LEWIS: How big a problem these days is 
the use of illegal drugs? 

MR. FENLEY: There is a continuing problem on the 
back side of the tracks with the grooms and people — apprentice 
jockeys, people like that. 

We see in the stewards report that are issued 
weekly, we see two or three incidents each week of 
apprehension. Those are dealt with with the stewards and the 
local police. 

I don't think that problem's been checked. I 
think it's a growing problem. 

SENATOR LEWIS: Any other questions? 

SENATOR BRULTE: Does the name Ken Maddy mean 


MR. FENLEY: Yes, the name means a lot. 

SENATOR AYALA: Mr. Fenley, the satellite 
wagering that we have experienced or are experiencing today, how 
has that affected the attendance at the race track itself? 

MR. FENLEY: I didn't understand your question, 

SENATOR AYALA: The satellite wagering that we 
are experiencing today. We have one in San Bernardino. 

Does that affect the attendance at the tracks 

MR. FENLEY: Well, it certainly affects — 

SENATOR AYALA: How is it working out? I guess 
that's what I want to know. 

MR. FENLEY: Well, the attendance is certainly 
affected, but the betting is done, and the percent going to the 
state is equal or better, because you have a larger geographical 
area. You can pull in the 29 locations of satellite wagering in 
California today. 

Having less of those, you wouldn't have the 
people going to the venue, but that's available to them, and so 
handle definitely is up. It's just that the association 
specifically doesn't benefit by the concessions, and parking, 
and things like that. 

SENATOR AYALA: I've spoken to many people who 
attend a betting at the Orange Show that come from Beaumont, and 
Riverside, and Victorville. They really enjoy that, because 
they don't have to travel all the way into Pasadena or Arcada, 

where ever, and from there they can return back to their home. 
So, it's convenient for them. 

This doesn't affect the track attendance at all 
in terms of having more persons at the track itself? 

MR. FENLEY: It does, but we're looking for the 
handle to increase. That's a business somebody is running. 

If the State of California is looking for the 
handle because of the percentages they're getting from the 
handle, I think today there's only 29 satellite betting parlors 
in the State of California for 30 million people. 

I think one area to expand is to expand that into 
many other cities to capture those people that don't come to the 
races because it's too far, and you could still take advantage 
of the betting. 

SENATOR AYALA: Do you support expanding that 
type of operation? 

MR. FENLEY: Absolutely. 

SENATOR AYALA: All things fall into place, and 
it isn't a problem, I guess is what I'm trying to establish, as 
it pertains to having people come into the race track itself? 

MR. FENLEY: It's not a problem. I think it 
could be expanded on a selected basis. 

SENATOR AYALA: Do you favor placement of card 
rooms at the race track operated by a publicly traded 
corporation? We don't have that yet, do we, in California? 

MR. FENLEY: I think Hollywood Park has an 

SENATOR AYALA: They have a card room? 


SENATOR AYALA: No problem with that? 

MR. FENLEY: I see no problem with that at all. 

SENATOR AYALA: You don't have any problem if it 
expands to other race tracks? 

MR. FENLEY: It has to be done on a very selected 
basis through the operator. 

SENATOR AYALA: What about the drug testing 
policy that you have? I understand the Attorney General was 
concerned at one time about the drug testing policies at the 
race track. 

Is that causing us any problems at all? 

MR. FENLEY: Are we talking about the individuals 
or the thoroughbreds? 

SENATOR AYALA: Horses, period. 

MR. FENLEY: I've been on the Board a short 
period of time, and I don't know detail on that, but I do know 
there's a lot of surveillance and a lot of awareness with the 
staff and the stewards on that problem. 

SENATOR AYALA: You see no problem with the drug 
testing of the horses at all? 

MR. FENLEY: I think there's a program in 
California that is a remarkable program that is a standard for 
other race associations. And I don't know the depth, but I just 
know the headlines on that. 

SENATOR AYALA: On that issue, closer to home, I 
represent, with Senator Brulte, the County of San Bernardino. 
They're trying to expand the track at Fairplex at the county 


fairgrounds in Pomona from three-eighths of a mile to one mile. 


SENATOR AYALA: Have you or the Board taken a 
position on that? 

MR. FENLEY: No, but I think we will soon. I 
think it's on the agenda for the meeting in June. 

SENATOR AYALA: It's scheduled for one of your 
future meetings? 

MR. FENLEY: It's June 13th. 

SENATOR AYALA: At this moment, you have no 
position on it? 

MR. FENLEY: I'm in favor of it. 

SENATOR AYALA: You just got my vote. 

SENATOR BRULTE: Very good answer. 

MR. FENLEY: There's a very good reason for that. 
Senator. Down the road, the present private association, such 
as Santa Anita, we don't know if property is going to become so • 
valuable that they're going to sell that off, and we may wind up 
with just state-owned facilities, such as Del Mar and Fairplex, 
et cetera. 

SENATOR AYALA: The fair's been there for almost 
80 years, I guess. It's always drawing. The area's booming 
with new citizens, and they want to attend the race track. 

MR. FENLEY: Right. 

SENATOR AYALA: And the financing for that 
additional portion of the track would come from bonds 
underwritten by the General Fund, which I don't think would be 
any problem or any risk on the General Fund because it's never 

been a loser. It's always been a winner. It's going to 

continue to grow, and it's going to continue to attract more 


I agree with you, it's a darn good policy, and a 
good project, and I have a bill to do that. 

SENATOR FENLEY: And I think it's a good 
investment for the future. 

SENATOR AYALA: Thank you. I have no more 
questions, Mr. Chairman. 

SENATOR LEWIS: Thank you. Senator. 

Mr. Fenley, we're not aware, the Committee's not 
aware of any opposition to your appointment. 

Let me just quickly ask in the audience, is there 
anyone here that wants to testify on behalf of Mr. Fenley? Is 
there anyone wishing to testify in opposition or express 

Seeing none, what's the pleasure of the 


SENATOR LEWIS: We have a motion. 
Secretary, please call the roll. 
SECRETARY WEBB: Senator Ayala. 


Ayala Aye. Senator Brulte. 


Brulte Aye. Senator Hughes 


Hughes Aye. Senator Lewis. 



SECRETAJ^Y WEBB: Lewis Aye. Senator Lockyer. 

Keep the roll open? 

SENATOR LEWIS: Yes, we'll place that matter on 

call . 

Congratulations . 

MR. FENLEY: Thank you. 

[Thereafter, under Rule 28.7, 
CHAIRMAN LOCKYER 's Aye vote was 
added, making the final vote 
5-0 for confirmation.] 

SENATOR LEWIS: Next today is Mr. Fred Hummel, 
State Architect. 

Mr. Hummel, welcome to the Committee. Do you 
have any opening comment you'd like to make? 

MR. HUMMEL: Thank you, yes. 

My first job out of college, 1951, I went to work 
as a junior designer in the State Architect's office here in 
Sacramento. After working there for awhile, I went back to 
private industry and I formed my own business and practiced 
private architecture until 1968, at which time I was appointed 
as the State Architect of California and returned to the old 
office where I had worked before. 

I worked there until — as State Architect until 
about 1974, when the term ended, and returned to private 
practice, staying there until recently, when I returned again as 
State Architect of California. 

I enjoy it. I'm very proud of it. We have some 


very fine people working for us, and it's really a great 
pleasure to be part of a really good team. 

I live in Sacramento. I enjoy it here. I'm 
pleased to be here today. 

SENATOR HUGHES: Do any Committee Members have 
any questions of Mr. Hummel? 

SENATOR AYALA: I have a question. 

You and I discussed that issue in my office, 
what is the function of the State Architect? 

MR. HUMMEL: Well, the State Architect has three 
basic sections of the office. One is the Office of Design 
Services. That office designs buildings for the State of 
California, in-house, and also does some contracting out when 
the workload is such that they can't do the work in-house. 

The second section of the office is the Office of 
Construction Services. That office supervises and inspects 
construction that is funded by the State of California, and also 
includes in that other contract services, such as inspecting 
jobs for California State University system, some of the 
Caltrans projects, some of the Corrections projects, and also 
provides direct construction services in emergencies when 
something needs to be constructed very quickly by the state and 
you don't have time to go out and bid it, or it's too small to 
do so, such as partitions and such in state buildings that are 
quick things to do. 

The thirds portion of the office is the Office of 
Regulation Services. That's the section of the office that does 
the checking of schools according to the Field Act, the Riley 


Act/ and the Garrison Act. 

And this year, we'll probably produce about $1.9 
billion worth of planned check schools because of the large 
increase in load. 

SENATOR AYALA: As we discussed again in my 
office, there is no duplication of services between a local 
school district who hires their own architect who is certified 
to draw those plans for the school. But then we have to bring 
them to Sacramento to check someone else's work who are 
certified for that work as well as your architects here. 

Why do we need that? Why do we have duplication? 

MR. HUMMEL: Actually, as far as checking them, 
we have four offices, as you know, in California: San Diego, 
Los Angeles, Sacramento, and San Francisco. 

And the only things we check for are structural 
safety under the Field Act. We don't check for quality or 
architectural features of the building, only check for the 
structural and then the ADA access rules, and fire and life 
safety. Those are the only things that our office checks for. 

Now, any building that is a building in 
California is going to be checked someplace. If it's a local 
building, it's checked by local city or county building 
officials . 

We do the schools here in the state because 
that's the way the law says we should do it. We really — I 
don't think we'd say we duplicate anything, but we do carry a 
very high standard of consistency in checking of schools. 

Keep in mind that it's not just for the safety of 


school children, but during a time of disasters, schools are the 
areas or the buildings always used for disaster housing and such 
because they're built to a pretty high standard, a little higher 
standard than the normal uniform building code usually calls 

And the cost for checking schools by the state, 
because of its consistency, and that's the only thing they do, 
is no more costly than if they were checked by local 
authorities. But they do have that feeling of consistency, and 
it's the only thing the office does. 

SENATOR AYALA: It's an oversight on local 
architects, the work they do. I'm sure that everybody's 
concerned about the Field Act and implementation of the law, as 
you mentioned. The law requires that inspection from the State 
Architect . 

To me, it's a delay that could be streamlined 
somehow, because I recall as a member of the board of education 
that it took months f or ■ the state to even recognize that they 
had a set of plans to check. And it already had gone through 
local architect that they hired, certified, only to be brought 
to Sacramento for a delay. 

This is before your time, of course, here. 

I just wondered why we have that duplication when 
the people down at the local level are just as qualified, or 
should be, or they better be, as those on your staff? 

MR. HUMMEL: Your recollection is absolutely 
correct. It used to take a long time. 

We now turn out eight schools a day. Our average 


plan checking time is 34 hours for the average school. 

The only time it's a delay right now is bin time. 
And that means the time from when the plans are filed until it's 
actually checked. The problem there is because of a tremendous 
workload increase of this year. The bin time has increased 
beyond what we care to have it. Therefore, we contract out with 
private engineers and architects to do the plan checking for 
that purpose. 

The bin time, in some areas, is down to six weeks 
now. That's not good enough for us. We want it to be about 
three weeks, but we suddenly got hit with this huge surge of 
work. So, we've contracted with every contracting firm 
available today to also work with us to do that. 

SENATOR AYALA: I'm not faulting you, because 
that's what the law requires. But I often wondered why we do 
that, since I'd like to think that the folks down at the local 
level are just as qualified as anyone you have here to check for 
the Field Act requirements. 

MR. HUMMEL: I think you're absolutely correct. 

SENATOR AYALA: So, why do we have that 
duplication? I don't understand it. 

MR. HUMMEL: There isn't any duplication. We 
don't do it twice. We only do it one time. 

SENATOR AYALA: They do it out there. They spend 
days and months doing that, checking plans and so forth. 

MR. HUMMEL: They don't do the plan check. We do 
the plan check. 

SENATOR AYALA: What do the architects do down 



MR. HUMMEL: Oh, you mean the architects 
producing it. 


MR. HUMMEL: Most of them are very qualified 
people, and they do a very good job. 

SENATOR AYALA: I'm not going to argue the point, 
but seems to me that there should be no need for those plans to 
come up to Sacramento if the people down there are just as 
reliable, certified and trained professionally to do that work 
at the local level. It just seems to me a delay of time for the 
local school districts to proceed with their plans. 

I know it's the law, so I'm not going to argue 
with you. 

MR. HUMMEL: Even if it's a private building and 
not a school, the local architects still have their plans 
checked, and they're checked by the local building officials. 

SENATOR AYALA: But not in schools, though. 

MR. HUMMEL: No, the local building officials 
don't get involved in schools. But if it's a private project 
they do. 

SENATOR AYALA: Most of your work is involved 
with schools; is it not? 

MR. HUMMEL: Yes, sir. 

SENATOR AYALA: Thank you, sir. 

SENATOR HUGHES: Senator Brulte. 

SENATOR BRULTE: Let me just follow up on that a 
little bit. 


Is there a compelling reason why local building 
officials couldn't check plans for schools built in their 
community, as they check plans for everything else built in 
their community? 

MR. HUMMEL: It varies a great deal, Senator. 
Some building departments do have capable structural engineers 
to do plan checking and some don't. 

We have talked to numerous local building 
entities and asked them if they wouldn't like to have the right 
to check these plans delegated to them. In each case they have 
said, we would prefer not to, because it's the one single thing 
you do; you do it consistently, and we would prefer not to take 
over that section of the work. 

However, we have recently done some certifying 
locally because we've had such a huge influx in the classroom 
reduction size that we have certificated local people to do the 
plan checking for our life, safety and ADA. 

SENATOR BRULTE: What are the areas you check 
plans for for schools? 

MR. HUMMEL: We check for structural integrity, 
fire and life safety, and ADA compliance for the handicapped. 

SENATOR BRULTE: And it takes 34 hours a school. 

MR. HUMMEL: An average of 34 hours. Average 
school today is about an $800,000 school. Some are larger; they 
take longer. 

SENATOR BRULTE: How many schools were checked 
last week? How many plans for schools were checked last 


MR. HUMMEL: Last week we had four offices 
turning out two schools a day. We will check 2,000 schools. 
Well, we checked 2,000 schools last year. This year, we'll 
probably check closer 3,000 schools. 

SENATOR BRULTE: Out of those 2,000 schools, how 
many plans were rejected because they didn't meet the standards? 

MR. HUMMEL: Well, it wasn't so much rejecting 
them, but they were sent back to have corrections made. 


MR. HUMMEL: I would say 80 percent of them went 
back for corrections, most of them fairly minor, some of them 

SENATOR BRULTE: Do you sanction architects that 
do them wrong? 

MR. HUMMEL: I'm not sure I understand the 

SENATOR BRULTE: Let me see if I have this right. 
There are certain standards that schools have to meet. Schools 
go out and hire architects to draw up plans to meet those 
standards . 

MR. HUMMEL: Right. 

SENATOR BRULTE: You're telling me 80 percent of 
the architects that do this get it wrong. 

MR. HUMMEL: No, 80 percent of the architects 
might have some minor corrections. And some of those 
corrections are because of new regulations in fire and life 
safety, ADA access. It's not so much of them doing it wrong; 
it's to clarify mainly the ADA issues, which are a civil rights 


issue, and it isn't really a prescriptive code. 

We help them through it so that both the school 
boards, their administrators and the architects have made the 
best possible effort they can. 

SENATOR BRULTE: Now, the major problems, you 
said some have major problems? 

MR. HUMMEL: Some do have major problems. 

SENATOR BRULTE: Could you give this Committee an 

MR. HUMMEL: Yes. Often a school district will 
hire an architectural and engineering firm that has never done a 
school before, and they're not familiar with the Field Act. 

They will often come in with building designs 
that might meet the uniform building code, but not the more 
stringent requirements of the Field Act. And to correct that, 
we're now having what we call concurrent plan review, that I 
just put into use about six months ago. 

Whenever an architect or an engineer has a school 
where they've never done one, they can come into the office and 
bring their preliminary plans in, and we'll check them with them 
during preliminaries. We'll check them part way through 
construction documents so that when they complete the plans, 
they're much more likely to have them perfect the first time. 

SENATOR AYALA: To add on to what Senator Brulte 
said, the time it takes for you to check the plans for the 
school is 34 hours? 

MR. HUMMEL: Approximately, for the average 
school, yes, sir. 


SENATOR AYALA: From the time you get started? 


SENATOR AYALA: Then it may be weeks before they 
get to them, according to the traffic you might be experiencing 
at the time. 

MR. HUMMEL: Yes, sir. 

SENATOR AYALA: So, it'd be more than just 34 
hours. Is 34 hours the actual time? 

MR. HUMMEL: That's the actual work time on the 
board once we gets started. 

SENATOR AYALA: I mentioned this many years ago, 
why couldn't the state come up with four or five plans for 
schools according to the environment and climate where that 
school's going to be located, whether it be the beach, the 
mountains, the desert, the valley? And then a school district 
could select one of those plans to construct on there? 

I believe in local government, home rule, so I 
just wondered if the school district wouldn't like that, but it 
would save a lot of money; wouldn't it? 

MR. HUMMEL: It could be done, and it would save 
a lot of money, yes, sir. 

SENATOR AYALA: They say, here's five plans. You 
folks are located on the beach. These are the schools that we 
recommend for your area? 

MR. HUMMEL: Yes, sir. 

SENATOR AYALA: Of course, the architects would 
probably argue with that. 

MR. HUMMEL: The argument that always comes up on 


that subject is that it just wouldn't fit our local property, or 
our conditions and such. That sort of emotional argument that 
can go on forever. 

SENATOR AYALA: It would save a lot of tax 
dollars by doing it that way? 

MR. HUMMEL: Not a great deal of tax dollars 
because, you see, your fee to design a school is only eight 
percent of the total cost of the school. And you'll pay the 
contractor 15 percent right off the top. 

SENATOR AYALA: How much, 8 percent? 

MR. HUMMEL: Eight percent is the maximum they 
can pay. 

SENATOR AYALA: It used to be five, of course, 
inflation, everything goes up. 

I understand that. My point is that if the plans 
were already drawn according to environment and conditions that 
exist in that location, there 'd be an awful lot of savings 
because you're still talking about the cost of drawing those 

MR. HUMMEL: You'd still save about three 
percent, because the rest of the cost still has to go into 
meeting the soil conditions that you have. 

SENATOR AYALA: Three percent only? 

MR. HUMMEL: You'd probably save about three or 
four percent at the most. 

SENATOR AY7VLA: I think it's worth the home rule 
over the control aspects of it, I guess. 

MR. HUMMEL: A lot of people would agree with 




SENATOR AYALA: I won't introduce legislation to 
do that . 

SENATOR BRULTE: Three percent on a $3 billion 
bond is a pretty good chunk of change. 

Let me just ask you another question. Eight 
percent of the construction can go to architect's fees? 

MR. HUMMEL: Yes, sir. That's everything. That's 
not just the architects. It's all the engineers -- 

SENATOR BRULTE: Doesn't that create an economic 
incentive to have a higher cost of construction? 

MR. HUMMEL: Only an intelligent school board or 
any client will use that only as a basis, and reach a definite 
guaranteed maximum price before you start. 

I've done many schools in my own practice, and 
I've never had one that had open ended contract. 

SENATOR BRULTE: Senator, I'd like to move this 
nomination, but I'd also like to support your bill. Senator 

SENATOR HUGHES: I'd like to ask some other 
questions of the Architect. 

At the beginning, you mentioned the fact that the 
Office of Regulation checks for Field Act compliance, Riley Act 
and Garrison Act. Tell me, what is the Riley Act and the 
Garrison Act. 

MR. HUMMEL: The Riley Act and the Garrison Act 
were modifications later on, after the Field Act was first 
passed. And some of them apply to only specific schools, some 


apply -- part of the Garrison Act applies only to the remodeling 
of existing school buildings. Basically, it's all same thing, 
but they rolled it together and apply, depending on the type of 
building it is. 

SENATOR HUGHES: Once a building is erected and 
it's declared in Field Act compliance, how frequently then is 
that building checked or rechecked to see if it still meets the 
Field Act standards. 

MR. HUMMEL: The State Architect's office doesn't 
recheck it unless a modification is done to the building. 

Now, up until right now, a modification of 
$25,000 in construction value can be done by a school district. 
You can do -- a school district can do $25, 000 without bringing 
it to the state. 

If you go over that, then you bring it in to be 
sure that those structural items are reducing the safety, or the 
fire life safety has been reduced as far as the children are 

Now, there's presently a bill in to raise that 
limit to $100,000. 

SENATOR HUGHES: After an earthquake, do you 
systematically go around and inspect buildings of certain age? 

MR. HUMMEL: Yes, ma'am. 

SENATOR HUGHES: What is the age cut off? 

MR. HUMMEL: No particular age cut off, but it's 
types of buildings, the location and the severity of the 
earthquake. We know the buildings that we would check first, 
and if there are any complaints about cracking, or anything in a 


building, we'll check that immediately. 

We were very pleased that none of our buildings 
has ever had a problem, but we do check them after earthquake 
very quickly, plus the fact that's the local community's safe 
spot to go, and you want to be that they are safe. 

SENATOR HUGHES: What about bungalows that are 
declared Field Act safe? Are they checked periodically, or once 
a bungalow is Field Act safe, do you then assume that they're 
always Field Act safe unless you have had major earthquake? 

MR. HUMMEL: We would assume them to be safe 
unless we had something that would damage them, fire, 
earthquake. Or, we could also have a request from the school 
district to say, would you please check this to see that it 
still meets the ADA requirements? 

SENATOR HUGHES: What about age-wise, because I 
know of a school district where they have some really sort of 
ancient bungalows that were supposedly Field Act safe, and what 
would a district have to do? Make a special request to have 
these buildings checked? And if they did, would the charge be 
made to the school district for paying for this inspection? 

MR. HUMMEL: Yes, but it would be very minor, and 
we would check it at any request. 

SENATOR HUGHES: How long does it take to have 
these buildings checked? I mean, it takes all of these months 
and weeks to have plans checked, but how long would it take a 
school district to have a building checked if there was not an 
earthquake recently? 

If, for instance, you just had an old district 


with some old bungalows, and the school board wanted to have 
them checked/ how long from request to implementation of the 

MR. HUMMEL: Well, I hope it would be within a 
week. There's be no reason why we couldn't. We just did one in 
Paso Robles -- excuse me, in San Luis Obispo two months ago. We 
got the request on a Monday, and it was finished before Friday. 

SENATOR HUGHES: From whom does the request have 
to come? From the school board or from the superintendent? 

MR. HUMMEL: Either. 

SENATOR HUGHES: Alright, thank you very much. 
You've helped me a great deal. 

Is there anyone in the audience that would like 
to testify for Mr. Hummel? 

Do I hear a motion? 

SECRETARY WEBB: We already have a motion. 

SENATOR HUGHES: We have a motion by Senator 


Secretary, call the roll. 
SECRETARY WEBB: Senator Ayala. 

Senator Lockyer. 

Leave the roll open? 

Ayala Aye. Senator Brulte. 


Brulte Aye. Senator Hughes. 


Hughes Aye. Senator Lewis. 



SENATOR HUGHES: Alright, we'll leave the roll 

MR. HUMMEL: Thank you very much. 

[Thereafter, under Rule 28.7, 


was added, making the final 

vote 4-0 for confirmation.] 
[Thereupon. This portion of the 
Senate Rules Committee hearing was 
terminated at approximately 3:03 P.M.] 
--ooOoo — 


I, EVELYN J. MIZAK, a Shorthand Reporter of the State 
of California, do hereby certify: 

That I am a disinterested person herein; that the 
foregoing transcript of the Senate Rules Committee hearing was 
reported verbatim in shorthand by me, Evelyn J. Mizak, and 
thereafter transcribed into typewriting. 

I further certify that I am not of counsel or 
attorney for any of the parties to said hearing, nor in any way 
interested in the outcome of said hearing. 

. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 

03— L day of /">1^^;:^ , 1997. 

Shorthand Reporter 


Additional copies of this publication may be purchased for $3.00 per copy 
(includes shipping and handling) plus current California sales tax. 

Senate Publications 

1020 N Street, Room B-53 

Sacramento, CA 95814 


Make checks payable to SENATE RULES COMMITTEE. 
Please include Stock Number 328-R when ordering. 





ROOM 113 


MONDAY, JUNE 2, 1997 
2:27 RM. 

JUL - 9 1997 



Reported by 




ROOM 113 


MONDAY, JUNE 2, 1997 
2:27 P.M. 

Evelyn J. Mizak 
Shorthand Reporter 










GREG SCHMIDT, Executive Officer 

PAT WEBB, Committee Secretary 

NANCY MICHEL, Consultant on Governor's Appointments 






Sierra conservation Center, Jamestown 

Department of Corrections 

FRANK R. SEARCY, President 

Chicano Correctional Workers Association 

FORD D. CANUTT, Chapter President 
Sierra Conservation Center, Jamestown 
California Correctional Supervisors Organization 



Proceedings 1 

Announcement re: Postponing CLUFF Appointment 1 

Governor's Appointees: 


Sierra Conservation Center, Jamestown 

California Department of Corrections 1 

Background and Experience 1 

Questions by CHAIRMAN LOCKYER re: 

Length of Time in Current Assignment 3 

Most Notable Issues in Previous 

Assignment at Conservation Center 3 

Selection of Inmates for Camp Program 4 

Primary Focus of Camps 4 

Number of Inmate Hours Spent in 

Fire Fighting Last Year 5 

Security Problems with External Crews 5 

Where Escapees Normally Go 6 

Overcrowding Problems 7 

Questions by SENATOR HUGHES re: 

Encouragement of Inmates to Become 

Professional Fire Fighters 7 

Policy Changes to Alleviate Overcrowding 8 

Bunking Decisions 8 

Alternatives to Incarceration 9 

Waiting List for Vocational and 

Educational Programs 9 


Fourth Grade Reading Level for over 

Half of Inmate Population 9 

Number of Inmate Hours Spent Fighting 

Winter Floods 10 

Policy toward Uncooperative Inmates 11 

Rewards for Outstanding Work or 

Rescues 11 

Questions by SENATOR LEWIS re: 

Criteria for Participation in 

Camp Program 12 

Witnesses in Support: 

FRANK R. SEARCY, President 

Chicano Correctional Workers Association 13 

FORD D. CANUTT, Chapter President 

California Correctional Supervisors Organization 13 

Motion to Confirm 13 

Committee Action 14 

Termination of Proceedings 14 

Certificate of Reporter 15 


CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Gubernatorial appointees, 
because of the absence of Senator Ayala, I think we probably 
need to postpone Mr. Cluff. I know he always has numerous 
questions to ask, so I apologize for the inconvenience to anyone 
that's here prepared to testify on that item, but we'll just 
have to delay. 

Mr. Kramer is the Warden. Are you here? Please 
come on up, sir. 

MR. KRAMER: Thank you. Senator. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Sierra Conservation Center. 

MR. KRAMER: Yes, sir. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: We've got a little booklet. 

What do you want us to know about you? Do you 
have some prepared comment? 

MR. KRAMER: Yes, sir. 

Mr. Chairman, Senators, my name is Mat Kramer. 
I'd like to present [sic] my opportunity to present my 
qualifications to the Senate Rules Committee today for the 
Warden's job at Sierra Conservation Center. 

With 27 years of public service with the State of 
California, 18 years as a state manager, and five years as a 
state supervisor, probably the most pertinent experience I have 
to this particular assignment was my last ten years, where I was 
up at the California Correctional Center and served as the 
acting warden for a year. 

Prior to that assignment, when I first went up to 

Susanville, I was the Business Manager in charge of the $80 
million budget and about 1100 employees at the institution. 
After that, I took on a post as the Associate Warden for Program 
Operations, where I supervised and managed an 1100-bed medium 
custody, Level III facility, which included an administrative 
segregation facility. I also had responsibility at that time 
for managing the education program and served as chief 
disciplinary officer. 

In 1993, I was promoted to the position of Chief 
Deputy Warden at the California Correctional Center, and I was 
also involved in the preactivation of High Desert State Prison. 

Since at Sierra, I believe we've made a number of 
improvements in Sierra's operation. We've implemented a work 
incentive program at Sierra which increased the education 
program. We increased by 20 percent the hours that the inmates 
get in the education program. It went from approximately 45,000 
hours a month to 57,000 hours a month with no increase in budget 
and no increase in staff. 

We've also implemented some increased security 
measures. We have stricter custody designations and inmate 
accountability. We've also been able to maintain at the same 
time the conservation camps. We manage the 20 conservation 
camps from Sacramento to the San Diego area. 

Last year, we had a record number of hours out 
fighting fires. We had 1,800,000 inmate hours last year on 
fires, and another 137,000 hours on flood control, flood work. 

We also expanded our Adopt a School Program and 
Computers for School Program, where at Sierra we've refurbished 


2200 computers for state schools. 

I think these changes have been made 
successfully, enhance the programs at Sierra, but keeping in 
mind security and the protection of the employees and staff. 

With that, Senator, I ' d be happy to answer any 
questions. Thank you for opportunity to present this to the 


CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Thank you very much. 
You've been at the current site for how many 

months now? 

MR. KRAMER: Nearly a year. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Almost a year. 

At the previous assignment, the Conservation 
Center, what issues arose there on your watch that were notable 
that come to mind that explain something about the judgments you 
make on issues that walk in the door? 

MR. KRAMER: I think as far as the overall 
operation at the prison, we certainly enhanced the -- we added a 
Level III facility. I was up there when we added a Level III 
facility. The reviews, I think teams that come in and do the 
audit reviews and what-not all gave the institution good reviews 
for the way the institution was being run and improvements that 
took place during the years that I was up there. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Was the Level III expansion 
maybe the most difficult task that you undertook during that 
assignment, or is there something else that comes to mind? 

MR. KRAMER: That was probably the most difficult 
as far as expanding and successfully implementing the program. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: How are inmates selected for 
the program? Is there some system that helps you do that? 

MR. KRAMER: Right. We have inmates come in from 
the Reception Center, and they come in with an initial 
classification, and we do a classification at the institution. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: So, you do your own? 

MR. KRAMER: And our primary mission at both 
Susanville and at Sierra is the camp program. So, we're 
screening the inmates to make sure they meet the criteria with 
their criminal background that we can successfully put them out 
into a conservation camp. And we have to have about twice as 
many inmates come into the system that we screen out, because 
not only their background, but they also have to be medically 
fit, medically qualified in order to go out into the camp 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: So, about half get selected? 

MR. KRAMER: About half, right, of the pool that 
comes in, about 50 percent actually go out to the camp program. 
And since these camp inmates are providing about half the 
state's wildlands fire fighting resource, I think it's really 
important that we keep these camps full. We've been able to 
successfully do that. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Is it principally fire 
fighting, or does it vary with the time of the year? 

MR. KRAMER: It varies with the time of year. We 
had 137 hours [sic] of flood — flood work last winter. And in 
fact, when I was up at Susanville, we proposed the legislation 
that expanded the camp program, which passed two years ago. 

which expanded the camp program to include both floods and any 
other natural disasters. Prior to that, we were limited to just 
fighting fires. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: How many hours do you think in 
fire fighting? 

MR. KRAMER: About 1,800,000 hours in fire 
fighting. It was a record. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: A million eight hundred? 

MR. KRAMER: A million eight hundred thousand 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Is that statewide? 

MR. KRAMER: That's for Sierra, just for Sierra 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: What do you think that is 

MR. KRAMER: Probably close to double that with 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: You pick up maybe half of the 
fire fighting? 

MR. KRAMER: A little more than half. We have 
the L.A. We kind of do year around fire fighting down around 
the San Diego-L.A. area. 

We were up two weeks ago. We had 130 inmates out 
two weeks ago in fires down around the L.A. area. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Do you ever have significant 
security problems on the external crews? 

MR. KRAMER: We've been fairly lucky. We've only 
had about 24 walk aways from the camps on the fire crews over 

the last year, which is about one percent. We have 2200 inmates 
that are out in the fire campS/ and we have about a one percent 
walk away rate. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Do you get them all back? 

MR. KRAMER: We got about half of them back. 
Eventually, we get a little more than that. But at the time we 
put in pretty intensive escape-pursuit plans into effect in that 
area, and if they haven't got a ride out of there right away, 
about half the time we're successful in getting them back. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Where do you find them when 
you pick them up later? 

MR. KRAMER: Excuse me? 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: The ones that get a ride, 
where do they get a ride to? 

[Laughter. ] 

MR. KRAMER: Usually out of the area. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Is it L.A? Where do they try 
to go? 

MR. KRAMER: Sometimes out of state. It can be 
where ever -- a lot of times, we'll notify -- we'll notify the 
local authorities where they're from. We'll notify any family. 
We'll also notify the victim, any victims that are on record 
whenever we have a walk away to make sure they're aware. We'll 
notify the local police departments from the area they were 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: So, you look for the contacts, 

MR. KRAMER: The contacts, yes. Senator. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Do you have any overcrowding 

MR. KRAMER: Yes, we do. We're at about 160 
percent overcrowding at Sierra now. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Is this based on a one per 
cell calculation? 

MR. KRAMER: It's on the one per cell on our 
Level III/ and our dorms are double. The dorms were originally 
designed for 16 inmates, and we're from 30 to 34 inmates. 

CHAIRM/yST LOCKYER: How do you accommodate that? 

MR. KRAMER: We have additional staffing. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: I mean, is it a bunk bed? 

MR. KRAMER: Bunk beds, double bunk. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: That's how you add? That's 
how you double up? 

MR. KRAMER: Right, we double bunk. They went 
from single to double bunk. 


SENATOR HUGHES: Since your inmates get some 
experience in fire fighting, do any of them, after they're free, 
apply for professional jobs as fire fighters? Or are they 
encouraged to do so? 

MR. KR7\MER: Yes, some of them. Some of them 
have gone on with the federal government, the hot shot crews or 
State CDF as summer fire fighters. 

They are also trained. They have the same level 
of training, what they call a Level One training, that they do 
qualify at the same rate as would the hot shots or outside free 


fire fighters. 

SENATOR HUGHES: I was looking at your capacity 
that your facility was built for, and you're almost double in 
terms of the population that you have there compared to what 
your capacity is. 

What kinds of policy changes have you implemented 
or do you plan on implementing to alleviate this overcrowding? 

MR. KRAMER: Well, we're kind of dictated to us 
by the inmates that are coming into the system. As long as we 
have the number of inmates coming into the system, then we have 
to place them in beds. 

At Sierra, we're having — we have a full 
capacity at Sierra with the beds we have now. What we're 
looking for in the future at Sierra is, we have identified or 
are identifying 250 additional camp beds. So, we'll be taking 
the current camp program, looking to see where we have 
infrastructure that can handle additional inmates, and going out 
and doing double bunking in some of the camps to handle that 
additional 250. 

SENATOR HUGHES: You have up and down bunk beds? 
Upper and lower? 

MR. KRAMER: Upper and lower bunk beds, yes. 

SENATOR HUGHES: How do you make the decision on 
who goes above and who goes below, or is it up to the inmate 

MR. KRAMER: It's made by the unit. The unit 
staff and the time that the inmates are in the unit or in that 
facility, and then they work out as to which bunk they're 

assigned to. 

SENATOR HUGHES: What are your views on 
alternatives to incarceration, and which ones do you think are 
the most successful? 

MR. KRAMER: I think the drug rehabilitation 
programs are probably the ones that we've seen as far as 
lowering the recidivism rates. 

Also, I think the camp program as far as taking 
inmates in. I know it's still incarceration, but least when 
they're in the camp program, they're in the system. They're not 
in a position where they can commit additional crimes. 

SENATOR HUGHES: I understand you have a 
vocational training and education program. 

What is your waiting list for getting into the 
these programs? 

MR. KRAMER: Our waiting list is approximately 
four to six months once an inmate comes in before they get into 
a vocational or education program at this point with the 
overcrowding. Months. 

Once they come into the institution, they're 
usually without an assignment for approximately four to six 
months . 

SENATOR HUGHES: She thought you said 4 6 months. 
She said, gee, that's four years. You said four to six. I 
heard you say four to six, thank you. 

What about the fact that I was reading that about 
65 percent, half the population of your inmates only read at or 
about the fourth grade reading level?' 


MR. KRAMER: That's -- Senator, that's 
approximately the level that most of our inmates come into the 
prison. When they're tested, they're at about the fourth to 
sixth grade level. 

We try to get them -- place them in an education 
program if they fall below the eighth grade level. We try to 
place them, primary placement, into a basic education program to 
teach them to read and write; that's correct. 

SENATOR HUGHES: So, if some of these inmates are 
then interested in becoming fire fighters, and interested in 
applying for civil service, then you would help them with 
reading geared to pass these basic kinds of exams and upgrade 
their reading levels? 

MR. KRAMER: We give them a basic education 
level. We also have ESL for those non-speaking English to give 
them a basic level that they can function, and communicate and 
function at the prison as well as in a fire fighting capacity. 
That should at least help prepare them, once they get out, where 
they could apply for a fire fighting, wildlands fire fighting 

SENATOR HUGHES : How many hours did the crews 
work during the recent winter floods? Do you have any idea? 

MR. KRAMER: I believe that was the one 
hundred — that was the — 137,000 hours of inmate labor was 
put in last year during the floods. 

SENATOR HUGHES: When you have these emergencies 
like fires and floods, are there any inmates who are 
uncooperative or show fear of going out on these ventures? If 



SO/ how do you work with them? 

MR. KRAMER: At the time that there's a problem 
with them where they become a disciplinary problem, we'll put 
them back into the institution and immediately replace them with 
another inmate that's gone through the training program to get 
them out to fight the immediate problem of either the fire or 
the flood. 

We then take them back to a committee, and we 
talk to them, and we assess whether we can put them back into 
the program, retrain them, or whether they'll be reassigned to 
another assignment that — if they just don't fit in or they're 
not working out in that program. 

SENATOR HUGHES: If they do an outstanding job or 
something in terms of rescue and what have you, are they 
rewarded? How are they rewarded, and what has to be the level 
of their accomplishment in terms of receiving a reward? 

MR. KRAMER: We had some inmates during the fire 
storm, the Malibu fire storm two years ago that actually went in 
and saved a number of folks. Saved — rescued them from their 

We put them up for a meritorious award. They go 
to a committee. We do a write-up on what they did. It goes to 
a committee, and then they can reduce or take time off their 
sentence, depending upon what acts they did. 

SENATOR HUGHES: Are they told that up front, 
before they go out to fight the fire or fight the flood, that if 
they do extraordinarily well, they will be rewarded? Or do you 
just let the word get around? 


MR. KRAMER: The word gets around. The word gets 
around, Senator. Most inmates are aware of it. 

SENATOR HUGHES: So, that in itself becomes 
incentive for them to participate in whatever the activity is? 

MR. KRAMER: That's correct, Senator. 

SENATOR HUGHES: Thank you very much. 


SENATOR LEWIS: In terms of the criteria of who 
might be able to participate in this camp program, where 's the 
line drawn in terms of the seriousness of the crime they 
committed in the past? 

MR. KRAMER: We have a very strict criteria that 
we've established that's been administratively established by 
the Department that you don't put inmates out there with serious 
crimes such as arson, murder, rape. Those types of serious 
crimes would disqualify an inmate from going out to a camp. 

Most of the inmates we have out in camp are on 
drug — DUI, drug, theft, property-type crimes. 

SENATOR LEWIS: Would that automatically exclude 
all violent criminals? 

MR. KRAMER: Serious violent criminals would be 
excluded, yes. Senator. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Are there people present who 
would wish to comment? If they're supporters, just indicating 
that would be fine. The hearts and flowers I could write for 

If there are negative comments, those are the 
kind of things -- not that we want we need to emphasize those. 



but we need hear about it. And I think everyone that's present 
is a positive comment. 

MR. SEARCY: Thank you. Senator, and good 
afternoon Committee Members. Frank Searcy, President of the 
Chicano Correctional Workers Association. 

As Mr. Kramer has identified his experience, we 
find that that is very pleasing. We have found that his 
experience in Corrections is very well versed, has good variety 
of it. 

Therefore, the Chicano Correctional Workers 
Association supports his confirmation for Warden at Sierra 
Conservation Center. Thank you. 


Anyone else? Do you want to come up? Please do. 

MR. CANUTT: I'm Ford Canutt . I'm a lieutenant 
at Sierra Conservation Center, and I'm also the Chapter 
President of the California Correctional Supervisors 

And we've worked with Mr. Kramer for the past 
almost year-and-a-half and found him to be a very capable, fair, 
and ethical Warden. And we wish to keep him there. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: They move them around as soon 
as they can buy a home. 

MR. CANUTT: Well, that's all I have to say. 
Thank you. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Thank you very much. 

Okay, Senator Lewis, what's your pleasure? 

SENATOR LEWIS: Move confirmation. 


CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: We have a motion. 

Any further questions or comment? Call the roll. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Senator Ayala. Senator Brulte. 
Senator Hughes. 


SECRETARY WEBB: Hughes Aye. Senator Lewis. 


SECRETARY WEBB: Lewis Aye. Senator Lockyer. 


SECRETARY WEBB: Lockyer Aye. Three to zero. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Let's leave the roll open so 
Senator Brulte can record. 

Thank you, Warden. Good luck to you. 

MR. KRAMER: Thank you very much. Senator. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: We wish you every success. 
[Thereafter, SENATOR BRULTE added 
his Aye vote, making the final vote 
4-0 for confirmation.] 

[Thereupon. This portion of the 

Senate Rules Committee hearing was 

terminated at approximately 2:47 P.M.] 
— ooOoo — 




I, EVELYN J. MIZAK, a Shorthand Reporter of the State 
of California/ do hereby certify: 

That I am a disinterested person herein; that the 
foregoing transcript of the Senate Rules Committee hearing was 
reported verbatim in shorthand by me, Evelyn J. Mizak, and 
thereafter transcribed into typewriting. 

I further certify that I am not of counsel or 
attorney for any of the parties to said hearing, nor in any way 
interested in the outcome of said hearing. 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 
")/L^ day of J^_^^^^-vv-<.^ , 1997 

Shorthand Reporter 


Additional copies of this publication may be purchased for $3.00 per copy 
(includes shipping and handling) plus current California sales tax. 

Senate Publications 

1020 N Street, Room B-53 

Sacramento, CA 95814 


Make checks payable to SENATE RULES COMMITTEE. 
Please include Stock Number 329-R when ordering. 

JUL - 3 1997 






ROOM 113 


MONDAY, JUNE 9, 1997 
2:20 RM. 


Reported by 




ROOM 113 


MONDAY, JUNE 9, 1997 
2:20 P.M. 

Evelyn J. Mizak 
Shorthand Reporter 










GREG SCHMIDT, Executive Officer 

PAT WEBB, Committee Secretary 

NANCY MICHEL, Consultant on Governor's Appointments 





DAVID W. FLEMING, Commissioner 
California Transportation Commission 


Industrial Welfare Commission 

CODY G. CLUFF, Member 

South Coast Air Quality Management District Board 

Community Environmental Services 


Small Business Coalition of Southern California 

EUGENE L. FISHER, Former Employee 

South Coast Air Quality Management District 


Sierra Club 

League of Conservation Voters 

National Resource Defense Council 

Coalition for Clean Air 



California League of Conservation Voters 


California Teamsters Public Affairs Council 

California Conference Board, Amalgamated Transit Union 

Region 8 States Council 

United Food and Commercial Workers 


Los Angeles League of Conservation Voters 

The Community Coalition for Change 


Service Employees International Union 




Proceedings 1 

Governor's Appointees: 


California Transportation Commission 1 

Introduction and Support by 


Background and Experience 2 

Questions by SENATOR AYALA re: 

Seismic Bridge Retrofits 4 

California's Ability to Meet 

Transportation Needs with Existing 

Funding Sources 5 

Questions by SENATOR HUGHES re: 

Opinion on Caltrans Contracting Out 

for Engineering and Inspection Services 6 

Possible Conflicts of Interest 7 

Questions by CHAIRMAN LOCKYER re: 

Concurrent Work at Two Law Firms 7 

Motion to Confirm 8 

Committee Action 9 


Industrial Welfare Commission 9 

Questions by CHAIRMAN LOCKYER re: 

Amount of Time Required to Serve 9 

Questions by SENATOR HUGHES re: 

Reason for Vote against Eliminating 

Daily Over-time 10 

Impact Heavier on Males or Females 10. 

Motion to Confirm 10b 

Committee Action 11 

CODY G. CLUFF, Member 

South Coast Air Quality Management District Board 11 

Background and Experience 11 

Questions by SENATOR LEWIS re: 

Today's Air Quality in L.A. Basin 

Compared to 1960s 15 

Qualification as Air Pollution 

Control Specialist 16 

Contract Renewal of MR. LENTS 18 

Witnesses in Support: 


Community Environmental Services 19 

Statements by CHAIRMAN LOCKYER re: 

Experience and Qualifications 

Do Not Meet Requisites of Position 

on Board 23 

Questions by CHAIRMAN LOCKYER re: 

Business Relationships with 

Appointee 23 

Consultant Work for Appointee 25 

Questions of MR. CLUFF by SENATOR AYALA re: 

Position on Smog Check Two Program . 25 

Steps Taken since Appointment to Board 

to Address Impact of Air Pollution on 

Children in Riverside-San Bernardino Areas .... 26 

Witnesses in Support: 


Small Business Coalition of 

Southern California 27 

Questions by CHAIRMAN LOCKYER re: 

Opinion on Replacing DR. LENTS 29 


EUGENE L. FISHER, Former Employee 

South Coast Air Quality Management District 30 

Questions of MR. CLUFF by SENATOR AYALA re: 

Letters of Opposition from Environmental 
Community 32 

Statements by CHAIRMAN LOCKYER re: 

Possible Tilt toward Business rather 

than Environment 34 

Consistent Pattern of Disruptive 

Force 34 

Questions by SENATOR HUGHES re: 

Background for Claim of Specialist 

in Air Pollution 25 

Familiarity with Citizens for a Better 
Environment 3 7 

Economic Health vs. Environmental Health 

in Lynwood and Gardina 39 

Proposals for Reducing Carbon 

Monoxide Levels and Ozone Levels in 

Lynwood and Gardina 40 

Disproportionate Effects of Air Pollution 

on Minority and Low Income Communities 41 

Purpose of Proposed Workshops 42 

Statute's Clear Definition of 

Qualifications for Position on Board 42 

How Specialty was Acquired 44 

Questions by SENATOR AYALA re: 

Every Board Member in Senate District 

Opposes Confirmation 49 

Disruptive at Meetings 49 

Statements by CHAIRMAN LOCKYER re: 

Only One Position on Board Reserved 

for Specific Technical Experts 50 


witnesses in Opposition: 


Sierra Club 

League of Conservation Voters 

National Resource Defense Fund 

Coalition for Clean Air 50 


California League of Conservation Voters 52 


California Conference Board of the 

Almagamated Transit Union 

California Teamsers Public Affairs Council 

United Food and Commercial Workers 53 


Los Angeles League of Conservation Voters 

Community Coalition for Change 54 


Service Employees International Union 58 

Questions by SENATOR LEWIS re: 

Would Union Support Appointee 

if He Did Meet Qualifications 59 

Statements by SENATOR HUGHES re: 

Disruptiveness in Meetings Does 

Not Persuade Against Confirmation 61 

Lack of Experience to Qualify 

for Position 61 

Need for Convincing Argument to 

Vote for Confirmation 62 

Responses by MR. CLUFF 62 

Questions by CHAIRMAN LOCKYER re: 

Continue to Work on Compliance 

Activities 64 

Statements by CHAIRMAN LOCKYER re: 

Inclination to Vote Against Confirmation 65 

Appointee's Pattern of Disruptive 

and Devisive Behavior 66 


Need for Fair and Consistent 
Environmental Policies and Implementation 
Strategies in California 66 

Motion to Confirm 66 

Committee Action 67 

Motion to Move Appointment to Floor 67 

Committee Action 67 

Termination of Proceedings 68 

Certificate of Reporter 69 


CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: This is the confirmation of 
David Fleming as a Member of the Transportation Commission. 

SENATOR ROBERTI: Thank you very much, Senator, 
and thank you, Senators, for taking this up. 

I'm here to, I guess in effect, introduce David 
Fleming, who, in many ways needs no introduction. I have known 
him for a number of years, especially since that period of time 
when I began representing the San Fernando Valley. He in many 
ways is the San Fernando Valley, among many other attributes 
that he has. 

He's a prominent lawyer with the law firm in Los 
Angeles of Latham and Watkins. He has spearheaded the Los 
Angeles City Charter Reform. He is a leader in just about every 
aspect of San Fernando Valley business that you can think of, 
and he has the respect across the board of people of all 
political persuasions. 

Whenever someone looks to a business leader to 
sort of take the lead in community affairs, not only in the 
Valley but in the City of Los Angeles as well, at the top of the 
A list is always David Fleming. He has enormous respect 
throughout the City. He has my enormous respect, and I was 
delighted when he asked me to come participate in his 
confirmation. I was very happy to do it. 

So, with that, David, maybe you can say a few 
words on your qualifications to the California Transportation 

CHAIFO^IAN LOCKYER: I have to note, anyone who's 
capable of getting Tom McClintock and Sheila Kuehl, as well as 
David Roberti to support them says something. 

MR. FLEMING: Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Members 
of the Committee. 

It's an honor for me to appear before you today 
having been nominated by the Governor for this important 
Commission. And I'm really doubly honored to have been 
introduced by my good friend and former leader of this august 
body. Senator Roberti. 

The Senator and I go back a long way. We have 
worked on a lot of things together on behalf of the business 
community in the Valley. I served, I was honored to serve, on 
the Senator's advisory committee for several years. 

I must admit, we didn't always agree on 
everything, because nobody usually does in political life, but 
we always sought common ground. We resolved almost every issue, 
always amicably, and always with great respect and regard for 
one another. 

Over the past 30 years, I've served on several 
bodies at various levels of government. Two Los Angeles City 
commissions, one of which I currently chair, which is the Board 
of Fire Commissioners, and on four Los Angeles County 
commissions . 

During this past year, the Mayor of Los Angeles 
and I wrote and co-chaired a recently approved voter ballot 
measure, as the Senator has referred to, which elected a 
Citizens Charter Reform Commission to help restructure Los 

Angeles City's government and its out-dated and disjointed City 
Charter, which was adopted some 70 years ago when Los Angeles 
was but a fraction of its present size, diversity, and 
complexity. The work of that committee will eventually go to 
the voters in two years for their consideration and approval. 

As an attorney in private practice, public and 
community service has always been important in my life. Over 
the years, I have volunteered, according to time records, 25,000 
hours of my time to serve various civic, community, and 
charitable organizations of all kinds. 

I consider transportation a vital key to 
California's future. Though I come from Los Angeles, with its 
unique and well publicized transit problems, I strongly feel 
that this state's transportation system must be viewed as an 
asset and a resource belonging to all the people of California, 
regardless of where they reside in our state, because what 
happens in one area of this state directly or indirectly affects 
everyone everywhere in this state. So, we must think globally, 
that is, statewide in our planning and funding decisions when it 
comes to both maintaining and growing California's 
transportation infrastructure. 

To paraphrase John Donne, no part of the state is 
an island. Our transportation funding decisions tolls for 
everyone, for we're all in this together. 

T^d if you should confirm my appointment, I look 
forward to working not only with the Members of the 
Transportation Commission, but with the Legislature, the 
Governor, with local jurisdictions and communities throughout 

the state to plan for, to fund, and to help meet California's 
future transportation needs. 

Thank you very much. 


Are there questions from Members at all? 

SENATOR AYALA: I'd like to ask Mr. Fleming, how 
do you believe the seismic bridge retrofits should be funded? 

MR. FLEMING: Well, fortunately. Senator, that's 
not within the purview of the CTC. It's between the Governor 
and the Legislature. 

I'm delighted to hear that you're close to 
resolution of that matter. 

I feel that the Bay Bridge is an important asset 
belonging to all of California. And I'm very hopeful that we 
can work out a balance to pay for this, and I think it's close 
to resolution. 

Yoii know, it seems to me that had we known the 
facts at the time that the seismic retrofit ballot measure was 
put on the ballot, and we had increased the amount in that 
measure by a billion dollars, which is what we're short, I don't 
think there's any question that the people of California would 
have approved it. So, consequently, it's something that we have 
to face. We can't let part of the state go unheeded. And I'm 
hopeful a resolution can be made of this as soon as possible. 

SENATOR AYALA: But you don't have any definite 
idea as to how it should be funded? 

MR. FLEMING: Other than what I've been reading 
and hearing, that there would be a portion from tolls and a 

portion from the state fund, I have no other ideas or 
suggestions. I just -- I know it's important that we get this 
issue resolved. 

SENATOR AYALA: Do you believe California can 
meet its transportation needs with existing funding sources? 

MR. FLEMING: I think in the long run, we have to 
start thinking about ideas, exploring ideas, to perhaps change 
the funding that we have for the infrastructure. Right now, 
it's based upon the sale of gallons of gasoline. 

We know that cars are more fuel efficient. We 
know now with the advent of the electric car that this is 
probably not going to work in the long term. In the short term, 
fine, but in the long term, I think we have to start thinking 
about addressing the issue as to how we're going to eventually 
pay for the transportation needs, raise the money for the 
transportation needs in this state. Because transportation and 
the future of the California are inextricably entwined. 

SENATOR AYALA: You had an interesting idea 
earlier today when we met about not funding the highways 
necessarily from the sales tax, but according to miles that they 
drive on the streets and freeways. 

MR. FLEMING: Our problem is that usage of the 
highway goes up, but the sale of gasoline gallonage either is 
constant or even begins to drop. So, consequently, we have to 
look more trying to tie in, I think, in the future. 

And again, I just think this is something we've 
got to start studying and thinking about, is highway usage, 
street usage, and the paying for the system. 

SENATOR AYALA: Thank you very much. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Senator Hughes. 

SENATOR HUGHES: Mr. Fleming, you know that in 
1990, a trial court enjoined Caltrans for privately contracting 
out for engineering and inspection services. 

Do you favor contracting out for these services? 

MR. FLEMING: Let me say that I've read that 
opinion. The law is the law. And as long as that is the law, 
we should obey it. 

And so consequently, that's something that we 
haven't discussed at CTC. It just came down. And I think there 
will be some discussion not only at the Transportation 
Commission, but clearly in the Legislature, by the people of 
California, as to what they want to do in the future. 

SENATOR HUGHES: How do you personally feel about 
it? If we have qualified state employees who can perform these 
tasks, should we still allow Caltrans to take their authority 
and contract out for these services? 

MR. FLEMING: Senator, my opinion is, whoever can 
do this and do a good job at the least cost to the taxpayers 
should be the way to go. 

SENATOR HUGHES : Then would you support the 
Commission's recommendation for a Constitutional amendment 
authorizing Caltrans to contract out for other state services? 

MR. FLEMING: I must say that until I find out 
more about that, I really don't have a position on it. I want 
to wait and I want to take a look at the facts first. 

But again, I think however we can get it done for 

the lowest cost and the best type of service is where we should 

SENATOR HUGHES: Do you perceive of yourself 
having any conflict of interest serving in this capacity in 
terms of your own personal goals? Do you or your family, or you 
and as an individual, or your corporation, or partnership, 
currently own any properties which might increase or decrease in 
value based on a decision that you might make as a Member of 
this Commission? 

MR. FLEMING: No, Senator. As a matter of fact, 
I have filed the necessary documentation with the state 
regarding conflict of interest, and I have none. Being a 
lawyer, I am very, very cognizant of being very careful to watch 
that so that there wouldn't be. 

SENATOR HUGHES: Have you recently or in the past 
had any option to purchase any property that might fit this 

MR. FLEMING: No, I have not. 

SENATOR HUGHES: All right, thank you very much. 

CHAIRMTU^ LOCKYER: Are there other questions? 

Is there anyone else present who would wish to 
comment either for or against this confirmation? 

I only had one question, sir, and I'd love to 
figure out how you do this as fellow member of the bar. 

It looks like you're concurrently an attorney at 
Latham and Watkins and senior partner at Fleming and Ingalls. 
How does that work? 

MR, FLEMING: No, Fleming and Ingalls was a firm 


that I was with for many years. That firm disbanded in 1992 
when I became of counsel with Latham. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Your list of substantive 
community involvements is very impressive. 

MR. FLEMING: Thank you, sir. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: I can see why Senator Roberti 
-- we haven't seen him for two years -- I can see why he wanted 
to break his rule of kind of leaving us alone, or whatever you 
want to call that, although we welcome him back any time, to 
make an appearance on your behalf. 

You're obviously qualified for any job in 
California state government. 

MR. FLEMING: Thank you sir. 


CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: We've all benefitted by your 
experience and assistance with these tasks. 

What's the pleasure of the Committee?. 

SENATOR AYALA: I'll move the confirmation of 
Mr. Fleming. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Motion by Senator Ayala to 
recommend confirmation. If you'll call the roll. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Senator Ayala. 


SECRETARY WEBB: Ayala Aye. Senator Brulte. 
Senator Hughes. 


SECRETARY WEBB: Hughes Aye. Senator Lewis. 


SECRETARY WEBB: Lewis Aye. Senator Lockyer. 



[SENATOR BRULTE later added his 
Aye vote, making the final vote 
5-0 for confirmation.] 


MR. FLEMING: Thank you very much. 

SENATOR ROBERTI: Thank you, good to see you. 
[There upon the Rules Committee 
acted upon legislative items.] 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: It will probably be really 
quick for Mr. Center if we could jump around this way, Member of 
the famous, infamous, or something. Industrial Welfare 

Do you want to start with any comment? 

MR. CENTER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. No 
comments. Just, it was an interesting three months serving on 
the Industrial Welfare Commission and going through the 
eight-hour day hearings. I just await your questions. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: We've received no opposition 
to the appointment. There are support letters mentioned. 

How much time does it take? How many hours a 
month, or however you measure these things? 

MR. CENTER: I came on in January. We had two 
meetings a week, sometimes no meetings. 


MR. CENTER: For a while, because we had three 


different issues we were addressing. And the amount of time was 
really the paperwork. We had volumes of paperwork from people 
pro and against changing the eight-hour day, and reviewing all 
the paperwork was a lot of time. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Are there questions from 
Members at all? Senator. 

SENATOR HUGHES: On April the 11th of this year, 
You voted against the proposal to eliminate the daily overtime. 

Why did you do that? 

MR. CENTER: The main reason I voted against it, 
the proposed changes allowed the employees no choice, where the 
current system in the regulations, the employee has a choice 
with a vote. But it went so far from involvement with the 
employees to no choice at all. I could not support it. 

SENATOR HUGHES: Do you think that this decision 
impacted males or females the most? 

MR. CENTER: I'd say the choice on — or the 
impact of demand over-time would probably impact single parents, 
whether they were male or female, the most who had to be 
involved in childcare. 

SENATOR HUGHES: Right answer. You gave the 
right answer. 

MR. CENTER: Thank you. Senator. 


CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Other questions? 


CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: We have a motion. Call the 
roll on that, please. 


SECRET7VRY WEBB: Senator Ayala. 


SECRETARY WEBB: Ayala Aye. Senator Brulte. 
Senator Hughes. 


SECRETARY WEBB: Hughes Aye. Senator Lewis. 


SECRETARY WEBB: Lewis Aye. Senator Lockyer. 



[SENATOR BRULTE later added an 
Aye vote, making the final vote 
5-0 for confirmation.] 

MR. CENTER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. 
Members . 


Okay, Mr. Cluff is next. 

Good afternoon, sir. Do you want to start with 
an opening comment? That's traditional or up to you. 

MR. CLUFF: Okay. I have an opening comment. 
I'll try and keep it brief. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Take your time. 

MR. CLUFF: For the record, my name is Cody 
Cluff. I'm Governor Pete Wilson's appointee to the South Coast 
Air Quality Management District, where I've been actively 
serving on the Board since December. 

I'm not native to California. I was born on a 
dairy farm in Nampa, Idaho and spent the first ten years of my 


life in rural parts of Arizona and Idaho. 

My family moved to California, Covina, 
California, which is in the San Gabriel Valley, when I was in 
the sixth grade. Covina is closely situated to the AQMD 
monitoring station in Glendora, which consistently reports some 
of the worst air quality in the country. 

That air quality, or lack of healthful air, came 
as quite a shock to my family. I remember distinctly many days 
delivering papers when I had to stop midway through in order to 
rest, in order to stop my eyes from burning, and to be able to 
breathe deeply. 

I'm strongly committed to protecting public 
health and the environment to make sure that my children don't 
have that experience, and that in fact we continue to improve 
the air, and to protect and improve the public health. 

My background is certified public accountant. 
That is by academic training. In 1988, I went to work for the 
Economic Development Corporation of Los Angeles County, where 
our goal was to promote Los Angeles as a place to live, to work, 
and to do business. 

In 1988, I helped create a coalition of 
economists, business, and labor leaders, which was called the 
Community Air Quality Task Force. The purpose of the task force 
was to advance technical and policy issues related to air 
quality that would prove effective as air pollution control 
alternatives. We were among the first to promote car scrapping 
and market trading programs. 

I also worked directly, serving with the 


District, serving on the Air Quality and the Economy Commission, 
and as member of that commission, participated in numerous 
public hearings, listened to more than 50 hours of public 
testimony from hundreds of citizens and small business owners 
and operators in every county in the South Coast Basin. 

I also created a program called L.A. Means 
Business, which served as an ombudsman to the Los Angeles area, 
working primarily with small and medium sized employers to 
resolve issues related to the AQMD and other environmental 

My expertise is in air pollution control. It's 
not limited to my employment with the Economic Development 
Corporation. To this day, I continue to work in those issues, 
having recently received a grant from the MSRC, Mobile Source 
Review Committee, associated with the District on a novel new 
program that cuts down on trips related to location and filming 
in the entertainment industry, and continue to work with 
companies throughout the entertainment industry and other 
industries in working on their issues with best available 
control technologies, and visible emissions, and sustained 
burns . 

I've worked in a detailed manner with all aspects 
of air pollution control issues, from waivers received through 
the hearing board, to equipment permitting changes, to 
facilitating AQMD inspections, to assist in first-time 
compliance. I've worked with companies to complete their permit 
applications and to calculate the annual fees and emissions. 

I've also assisted companies through new source 


reviews, and assisted them in finding and purchasing existing 
inventories of emissions and in structuring their permit billing 
cycles to allow for a once annual billing. 

I've served on Cal EPA's one-stop permitting 
committees at the request of staff, and was selected there due 
to my unique specialty of assisting small business owners and 
operators in compliance with and understanding existing rules 
and regulations, and in creating streamlined and one-stop permit 

These experiences are but a few of the examples. 
I've also published articles, served as an expert on panels, 
appeared as a guest on radio shows, and debated air pollution 
control strategies with noted pundits. In all of these things, 
my professional opinions and thoughts regarding air pollution 
control have been sought out by local and regional 
organizations . 

My philosophy with regard to the environment 
generally and air quality specifically is that it's a matter of 
public health, and that it is too important to be used as a 
simple part of a political game. 

As it relates to the economy, a healthy and 
enjoyable environment, or a lack thereof, has become our single 
most competitive issue. 

I've included or brought today with me, which I 
will share at the Committee's request, a plan or my statement on 
my environmental plan for the District. But I believe strongly 
that we can't just build, and build, and build, and then die of 
smog and -- emphyzema and smog, poor air quality related 


diseases . 

On the other hand, I don't think we can focus 
simply on clean air and not have good quality jobs. I believe 
that good air quality is imperative, that all communities 
deserve equal access to healthful air, air that is free of 
toxics, air does not cause asthma, and air that does not 
prematurely shorten life. 

Having said that, the ability to sustain an 
economy is also important, and consequently, many of the changes 
we need to make must be made gradually and in a predictable 
manner. Nevertheless, they must be real improvements in air 
quality, not paper maneuvers designed to give the perception of 
improvement without real progress. 

I've dedicated myself to the area of air 
pollution control where the rubber meets the road, where the 
work gets done, and people's lives are affected, not in trying 
to deregulate, but in trying to assist with compliance, and 
where necessary, effectuate change by providing enlightened 
options . 

Thank you for taking the time to listen to me 
today, and I'm happy to answer questions. 

SENATOR LEWIS: Mr. Cluff, when I was a youngster 
in grade school back in the '60s, I recall times when PE class 
was canceled because the air was so bad. 

How does the air quality in the Basin today 
compare with how it was back at that point in time? What's the 

MR. CLUFF: I think there's no question that the 


number of smog alert days has declined over the last 50 years, 
down to one last year. We've made substantial and remarkable 

I don't think that can be limited to where we 
have to go. Our technology today would indicate that we're 
going to continue to make good progress, but we still have other 
issues out there. Issues like the emissions of toxics and 
particulate matters are very important to our health and are 
issues that we will face in the next decade. 

SENATOR LEWIS: Do you have any quantifiable 
numbers as to how much better the air is today? What statistic 
would you point to, to show at least the trend is moving in the 
right direction? 

MR. CLUFF: I think that the most dramatic — the 
most dramatic decrease, or the most dramatic symbol of our 
progress, would be in the number of days where we failed to meet 
the federal implementation standards on where we've had first 
stage smog alerts. And as I said, that number has improved from 
80, I believe, in 1986, or '79, to one last year. 

SENATOR LEWIS: One of the points that your 
detractors are making is that they don't think you meet the 
qualifications for the appointment relative to your background. 
You're not a physician; you're not a chemist, whatever the code 

But there is some possible little room on the 
specialist in air pollution control, which I guess has enough 
little room attached to it. Is that where you're making your 
claim that you qualify under the statute? 


MR. CLUFF: Yes. Among the more technical • 
requirements or possible requirements is a statement that the 
person should be an air quality -- an air pollution control 
specialist. And I feel that I've developed a very unique 
specialty in dealing with small and medium sized employers in 
assisting their compliance through the permit process. 

In fact, I've been selected over many times to 
sit on committees and hearing boards specifically because of my 
unique expertise in dealing with companies, by walking through 
their plants, dealing with their specific permitting issues, 
their inability to be able to meet BACT -- that's best available 
control technologies -- to assist them in finding alternative 
methods of compliance, and working through the process with the 

Many of these small businesses are overwhelmed by 
the number and amount of environmental rules and regulations 
they face. They don't know where to start. They're afraid to 
call. In many instances, they have heard bad rumors or negative 
consequences of companies that have tried to comply. And they 
need somebody who has experience in working with the District 
and can hold their hand, and take them through that process. 

And in my -- my work as an economic development 
development professional is to promote the greater Los Angeles 
area as a place where companies can continue to do business, and 
where our air quality and environmental regulations are actually 
a benefit and not an opposition. And my unique ability is to 
sit down and work them through the process, and help them stay 
in the area. 

SENATOR LEWIS: The other point that seems to be 
on the mind of a number of your detractors right now is that 
relative to what's going on with the contract renewal of 
Mr. Lents. I've read at least one newspaper article that 
inferred that this whole thing was being correographed by 
Republican Legislators. 

Is this a partisan attack on Mr. Lents that's 
going on in the South Coast District right now? 

MR. CLUFF: No. I believe, in my opinion, it is 
not . 

We have two Democrats out of the six that have 
voted not to renew Mr. Lents 's contract and four Republicans. 
And on the other side, I believe they have at least two or three 
Republicans who have voted to sustain Mr. Lents. 

I have not had contact with members of the 
Republican Party, Legislators, on this issue, and have not been 
asked to vote one way or another by any state elected official 
in any way, shape, or form. 

In my opinion, Mr. Lents has been quoted recently 
by The San Francisco Chronicle as saying that we are drifting 
along on past progress. And I think we have far too much at 
stake to drift along on past progress. We need to aggressively 
attack the issues that face us, and to find creative solutions 
that will protect public health. 

SENATOR LEWIS: Thank you. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Were there any other things 
that Members want to ask at this point? Do you mind if we take 
testimony from supporters and opponents? Either way is fine. 


I'll ask people to come forward, but just jump in 
if there are questions. 

MR. CLUFF: Do I stay up here? 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: At least stay for the 
supporters. Stay there. 

Those who want to comment, come on up. 

MR. ABRAMOWITZ: Hi. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, 
Members of the Committee. 

My name Is Mark Abramowitz, and I am President of 
Community Environmental Services in Yorba Linda. 

The last time I was before this Committee was for 
the confirmation of the Governor's prior SCAWMD appointee, Hugh 
Hewitt. I came with hatchet in hand. 

This Committee had the great wisdom to reject Mr. 

Today I'm here to ask you to confirm this 
appointee, Cody Cluff, as the Governor's representative to the 
AQMD Board. I ask you to confirm him for three reasons. 

First, Mr. Cluff meets the Health and Safety Code 
requirement that the appointee be a specialist in air pollution 
control. And I'll expand on that in a minute. 

Second, in the time he has sat to the Board, he 
has done a good job based upon the opinions of those who have 
worked with him since he became a Board member, including, 
strangely enough, those who have sent letters in opposition to 
his confirmation. 

Lastly, Cody possesses the leadership, skills, 
drive, and commitment to clean air that can renew our progress 


toward a breatheable Southern California. 

In assessing Mr. Cluff s qualifications as 
Governor's appointee, I believe I have a unique perspective and 
good qualifications to judge that better than perhaps most of 
those that have expressed the alternative view. 

I've been active in air quality issues for 15 
years. I've worked as Statewide Air Quality Director for CBE, 
Citizens for a Better Environment then. Communities for a Better 
Environment now. Served as Vice President and Program Director 
for the Coalition for Clean Air. Served as Chairman of the 
hearing board of the South Coast Air District. Served as chief 
negotiator for the Environmental Caucus in the negotiated rule 
making for off-shore drilling -- for the off-shore drilling air 
quality suit, California vs. James Watt . 

I've served as board member of the Los Angeles 
League of Conservation Voters. In fact, at one of our last 
events, Mr. Chairman, I happened to see you there and had the 
great fortune of talking with you. 

I've also taught a number courses on air 
pollution. And yes, I'm the Abramowitz in Abramowitz vs. EPA, 
the citizens' suit that forced EPA to reject the air plan in 
South Coast and ultimately prepare a federal implementation plan 
or FIP. 

I could go on, but I think I've pretty much well 
established my qualifications for evaluating the air quality 
specialist and specifically Mr. Cluff. 

In my opinion, not since Gladys Meade, two 
administrations ago, has a more qualified Governor's appointee 


at the been selected. In fact, the provision setting 
qualifications for the Governor's appointee came after a 
previous Governor appointed Gladys's successor. That person's 
only qualification was a disdain for controlling air pollution. 

Yes, the qualification section in the Health and 
Safety Code is broad. We all knew it when it was drafted. It 
was a compromise. But its purpose was to ensure that someone 
with some experience in air quality control would be appointed. 
And since it was passed, the confirmation process has approved 
those less qualified than Cody, but with some experience 
nonetheless . 

Please don't hold Cody Cluff to a different 
standard than his predecessors. Pollution control issues have 
been the focus of Cody's air pollution involvement. But unlike 
others, his work didn't just include pontificating on this air 
pollution control policy or that air pollution control policy. 

Cody has been a specialist, providing many 
companies help with BACT issues and pollution control 
compliance. He's done this with a focus on small business, an 
area of compliance and control that few air pollution 
specialists have expertise in anywhere. And in providing 
assistance, Cody has performed the nuts and bolts tasks like 
determining control requirements and preparing the technical 
information necessary to apply for a permit. 

When the Governor appointed Cody, many 
environmentalists were relieved that he had apparently taken 
great care in choosing an appointee. We were pleased he gave 
the nod to a moderate. In fact, I put out a press release. 


along with Tom Soto, former President of the Coalition for Clean 
Air and a board member of several environmental organizations, 
praising the Governor for his choice. You should have a copy of 
that release attached to the letter I've submitted. 

Cody's done good work, at least according to 
environmental group staff I've talked with, people who were 
skeptical at first. Not that environmentalists have agreed with 
him on every issue. They didn't and won't. The fact remains, 
he has performed well. 

I'd like to leave you with the thought that there 
are some people destined for public service. These people care 
and want to make a difference. They want to do something for 
the community. Some of them are even good at it. These people 
are less common you might think. 

I think Cody is one of that rare breed. If you 
confirm him, you'll see him shine in that role. If not, he'll 
be remembered as the good one that got away. 

Thank you very much. 


Are there questions Members would wish to ask? I 
might if they don't. 

It's very difficult, but we're friends and share 
a common perspective and philosophy in most instances. So, I 
guess they're appropriate for me to be asking. 

I noted in your comment the emphasis on the words 
"some experience", because that would sum it up. That is, it 
seems to me Mr. Cody has some experience being around air 
quality experts, but not being an air quality expert. 


I don't think hanging around air quality experts 
is a form of experience, personally, that meets the statutory 
requisits, which are rather explicit: a physician who has -- 
you know, and it surprises me that the Governor doesn't know any 
of these people, frankly -- but a physician who has training and 
experience in the health effects of air pollution; an 
Environmental engineer; a chemist; a meteorologist or a 
specialist in air pollution control*. 

It's obvious to me that these are specialties 
we're talking about. And I've asked our staff to review the 
history of confirmations, and what kind of qualifications people 
had. I note that they fit these categories, except for 
Mr. Hewitt, who wasn't even close to these criteria. The prior 
appointees, Steve Albright, Jack Witz, fit. They were doctors 
of environmental science, and employed full-time in Colorado in 
air quality matters, and so on. 

So I guess I start just by having a different 
interpretation of the statute, and frankly, an interpretation 
that was the basis for the rejection of Mr. Hewitt, that he just 
didn't have the requisite qualifications. 

I don't think your assessments of his philosophy 
are an adequate substitute for the experience that the statute 

Now, let me move on to the more difficult thing 
to ask. Any business relationship between the two of you? 

MR. ABRAMOWITZ: Currently there is no business 
relationship between the two of us. 

In the past there has been some. I've done some 


work for the -- for the EIDC, and I performed some of those 
tasks after knowing Cody for several years. 

With respect to your other comment, I would 
respectfully disagree with you on two counts. The statute -- I 
was referring to the statute rather than Cody with respect to 
some experience. And actually the environmental -- 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: It doesn't say some experience 
in the statute. It says a specialist the air pollution control. 


CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: That's the most general 
category enumerated. 

MR. ABRAMOWITZ: And that was the big compromise. 
In fact/ the environmental community wanted somebody that had a 
lot of credentials -- a meteorologist, a doctor, et cetera. But 
this thing got put in, and that happens in legislation. 

Cody has not just hung around these folks. He's 
had many years of experience in dealing with the nuts and bolts 
issues and doing the nuts and bolts analyses that many of us 
would find boring. And the things that specialists do, the BACT 
analyses, the permit analyses, the compliance assistance 
specifically related to small business. He's had a substantial 
amount . 

I had forgotten actually about Jack Witz, but 
certainly Cody's had a lot more experience than, say, Steve 
Albright coming into this process. 

And I opposed Hugh Hewitt last year because he 
didn't meet any of the qualifications, so I would agree with you 
there . 


CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Frankly, I don't see any way 
to consider Mr. Cluff a specialist in air pollution control. He 
works for the movie industry. He used to work for Mayor Riordan, 
and so on. 

Let me ask you the question again about the 
business relationship. You perform consulting work for the 
group he heads up? 

MR. ABRAMOWITZ: That's correct. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: How long ago? 

MR. ABRAMOWITZ: I did some work probably 
starting about a year-and-a-half ago. I did some work with 
respect to the implementation of AB 1299, Peace, which set up 
permit consolidation zones. And EIDC asked me to take my 
expertise in regulatory development and work with Cal EPA on 
some of those regulations. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: That went for how long? 

MR. ABRAMOWITZ: That probably went until 
probably about December, maybe. 


Are there other questions? 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Is this of Mr. Cluff or the 

SENATOR AYALA: For Mr. Cluff. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: All right, thank you. 

MR. ABRAMOWITZ: Thank you. 

SENATOR AYALA: As you well know, the Smog Check 
Number Two is a federally mandated program. 

Do you support that program. 


MR. CLUFF: Yes, I do. 

SENATOR AYALA: Can you tell us what steps you 
have recommended since your appointment to the Board that would 
address the impact air pollution has on our children out in the 
Riverside-San Bernardino areas? 

Orange County and L.A. County, they're the 
polluters, as you well know, and you blow it into our areas. 
They're not too concerned about the Board putting restrictions. 

But what have you recommended since you've been 
on that Board that would address the effect air pollution has on 
our children? 

MR. CLUFF: The two things I've done 
specifically, and I've been on the Board only since December/ 
and so these are the areas that I've been able to deal with. 

But one is Rule 2506, which was a reclaimed 
rural area sources in which there was sort of a backdoor attempt 
to bring in VOCs as a part of the trading program. 

I worked with the Coalition for Clean Air there 
to hold up the bill -- the rule for a month while we did 
continuing negotiations between a regulatory flexibility group 
and the Coalition for Clean Air and the NRDC, and ultimately 
that led to taking out the VOC components of that program, which 
the environmental community had serious concerns about. 

The second thing I did was, as a part of 2501, I 
supported a renewed look at the toxics issue by calling — 
including in the support of 2501 a new workshop on toxic risks 
in order to evaluate the effects of toxic emissions in the South 
Coast Basin. 


SENATOR AYALA: Thank you. 

MR. CLUFF: I would also support the current 
legislation that's being sponsored or supported, I'm not sure 
which, by the Lung Association, which would call for 
notification of day care centers about the air quality on any 
given day. 

SENATOR AYALA: So, you wouldn't support, 
necessarily, the legislation to do away with Smog Check Number 

MR. CLUFF: No, I would not. I support Smog 
Check Two. In fact, I'm sure that I voted as part of the 
Legislative Committee to support that item. 

SENATOR AYALA: Thank you. 

MR. LAIRD: Good afternoon. Senator Lockyer and 
Committee. My name is Ed Laird. I am a small business owner in 
Southern California. I own Coatings Resource Corporation. It's 
a small specialty coatings manufacturer in Huntington Beach. 

And Senator Lockyer visited me and my facility 
sometime ago on air pollution matters. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: When I read through the 
letters of support, you're actually one of the ones that I 
considered credible, that wasn't just a political friend or 
something of that sort making a comment. 

I'm curious to hear what you're going so say, Ed. 
Go ahead. 

MR. LAIRD: Well, thank you. 

Besides owning a specialty coating manufacturer, 
I also an engineering firm called EQC, Environmental Engineers. 


It is a 12-year firm that helps medium sized business through 
the maze of air pollution regulations. 

I have been a paint chemist in the Los Angeles 
Basin for 35 years. I had the first coating to meet Rule 
442 (k), which is the first technology- forcing rule on coatings. 

I'm here today as a representative of Small 
Business Coalition. It's a coalition of all permit holders of 
at least 4,000 members that interact with regulatory agencies. 

we have followed the activities of AQMD for the 
past twelve years. 

The Small Business Coalition endorses Cody Cluff 
this morning as a member of the South Coast Air Quality 
Management District's governing board. We've known, and I've 
known Cody personally for six years. I first met him at the Air 
District when we were workshopping Rule 1136. He did 
participate in that workshop, and he is quite knowledgeable of 
the workings of the AQMD. 

He has since participated in Reclaim, Home Rule, 
and other activities that I have known him personally to be 
involved in. 

He is knowledgeable about our rules and 
regulations and would make a very good permanent member of the 
governing board. 

We have had a great turnover in our board 
recently, and I think that we need somebody with Cody's 
expertise . 

I thank you for allowing the Small Business 
Coalition's input. And we appreciate that if you would confirm 


Cody Cluff as the Governor appointee. Thank you for your 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Let me ask how you feel about 
replacing the management team at the top. Is that something 
you're in concurrence with? 

MR. LAIRD: I am in favor of Dr. Lents leaving 
the District, yes. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Would you explain why that is? 

MR. LAIRD: Why I changed my mind since we've 


MR. LAIRD: Basically, when we were going through 
the depression of '94, I think the District made a good window 
dressing of the fact that we needed — that there was a real 
burden of regulation on the small business owner. 

Since then, I believe that they have returned to 
the ways of the '80s, the permits being slowed down. We have 
permits from small business people that have been 18 months 
waiting for a permit out of the South Coast District. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Is that because there's half 
the staff that there were at the peak? 

MR. LAIRD: I don't believe so. I believe that 
the staff has a very low morale. I think they want to see 
change in leadership as well. I believe that the environmental 
community wants to see a change in leadership, but they're 
afraid of change. I think that most -- 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: That's why they're not saying 


MR. LAIRD: Yes, yes. 

Most of the business community would like to see 
a change because we think that Dr. Lents is too aloof. He has 
applied for other jobs over the past three years. He did not 
get them. 

I believe that, quite honestly, him asking for a 
three-year contract is similar to a man that would probably take 
the contract, and in a few months come to the conclusion that he 
is not any longer viable, and then have a buy-out. He's been on 
a one-year contract for the last 11 years. I would say leave it 
that way, or let's have some new leadership. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: So, leaving it on one year 
doesn't offend you either? 

MR. LAIRD: I think that we need a change in 
leadership. I really do. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Other questions from Members? 

Thank you. 

MR. LAIRD: Thank you, sir. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Is there anyone else that 
would wish to comment? Please. 

MR. FISHER: Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and 
Members. My name Gene Fisher. I'm here in support of Cody 
Cluff being confirmed to be a member of the South Coast Air 
Quality Management District Board. 

In the way of my background, I worked for the 
South Coast Air Quality Management District for more than 30 
years. I have a Master's degree in environmental studies, a 
Bachelor's degree in chemistry from UCLA. 



For the latter part of my career, while I was at 
the SCAQMD, I represented them here before the Legislature and 
also before local governments throughout Southern California. 

I suppose I lobbied most of the bills that gave 
the District what seems to be a lot of authority because we had 
a very tough job facing us. 

I think today the key word is public health. 
It's always been with me, and certainly to debate the issues 
before this body with those who have economic interests and 
those, certainly all of us who have health interests. 

I give that in the way of background in saying 
that I've talked to and worked with a lot of people as they came 
before the District and certainly advocated their own issues. 

I found Cody Cluff to be fair as a person who 
lives in Southern California and raising a family. I heard him 
today say that, in fact, he lived in the San Gabriel Valley. 
That's one of the smoggiest places in the area. 

I live the South Central Los Angeles. I am 
sensitive to the fact that we have toxics continuing to be a 
negative impact on our public health population. Certainly in 
those areas of low income, certainly the issues of environmental 
justice should be put on the table. 

I've been able to talk to Mr. Cluff about these 
issues, and sometimes we didn't always agree, but always we did 
discuss them, and I thought in a fair manner. 

I've been able to observe him at distance as a 
public member, as how the District Board was continuing to make 
its progress. I find that more than anything else, a 


reasonable, rational approach to the information that's 
presented the way I understand the legislation being drafted is 
what is desirable. 

He seems to have those qualities. I found that 
to be the case. Based on that, I would continue to support his 
confirmation. Thank you. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Thank you, sir. 

Other questions? Thank you, sir. 

Is there anyone else that would wish to comment 
on the support side of the discussion? 

If not, let me ask if there are any other 
questions. Yes, Senator Ayala. 

SENATOR AYALA: I have concerns about the 
confirmation of Mr. Cluff. 

Outside of the unions, forget about the unions. 
Every one of them's against you. Forget about them. 

What bothers me is that we have letters of 
opposition from the Environmental Media Association, Communities 
for a Better Environment, Coalition for Clean Air, California 
League of Conservation Voters, the Sierra Club, Natural Resource 
Defense Council, Planning and Conservation League, and the 
Coalition for Clean Air. 

If you're doing such a good job, why would these 
people be against you? 

Never mind the unions. Forget about the unions. 
We understand where they're coming from. 

But these are people who 're concerned with the 
cleaning of our area. 


MR. CLUFF: I won't address unions for a long 
point, but I have a lot of union support. 

In terms of the environmental community, I 
believe that the opposition to my confirmation came after my 
vote to oppose the renewal of Dr. Lents 's contract. 

SENATOR AYALA: That's not before us. That 
doesn't matter to me. 

I just wonder why these people are opposed. If 
that's the reason, why would they be concerned that you're going 
to lose that person if you're doing a good job. 

That may be the ultimate goal that some people 
might have, but it's not before us today. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: You think that's the reason? 

MR. CLUFF: In my opinion, I think that that's 
the reason. 

I know that I have worked on very specific rules 
with the Coalition for Clean Air and the NRDC, and that they 
have called me afterwards to express thanks for the work that 
I've done on those bills. 

I think that it would be fair to say that my 
historic record would lend some to fear that I would favor 
business over the environment. I think that my work thus far on 
the Board should show a very good balance, especially since some 
members of the larger business -- the big business community 
have opposed portions of the work I've done there. 

I can't speak factually for someone else. I can 
only tell you what I think. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: They may be present. Some of 


those groups you named may wish to make a comment, and we'll 
hear from them. 

I guess I would mention, on the worry that you 
perhaps tilt toward business rather than environment, the 
candlelight vigil in '93 is probably an example of commentary 
about the harmful environmental compliance regulations, was your 
quote, that would perhaps give them some reason to worry. 

I have a different one, and I don't know that it 
will be addressed, particularly by the various groups that will 
comment. But I want to be honest about it, Mr. Cluff. 

I don't know you. I don't know Dr. Lents and 
most of the members of the governing board. As a Northern 
Californian, I'm not one who attends these meetings and claims 
to have any personal expertise about the matter. So, I try to 
look at the biographical information, the news clippings, 
whatever I can get that gives me some objective sense of a 
person's role, and philosophy, and perspective. 

And I'm concerned about what seems to be the one 
consistent pattern, and that is to be what I would characterize 
as a disruptive force. I saw it when you were involved in the 
recall of the Republican mayor and City Council in Covina. I 
saw it when you shut down the film office, the County Film 
Office, and created your own, where you then went to be 
employed. I see it after five meetings of the Air District, 
turning it topsy-turvy, and firing people who have been there 
for a decade. 

So, there seems to me to be a pattern. Now, some 
might describe that as the energy and the desire to change 


things and get things done. I see it more destructively than a 
creative effort. But it does seem to be a pattern that I can 
see for 15 or 20 years, and it's what gives me pause about 

Clearly, you are not the same as Mr. Hewitt, and 
I agree. I mean, he wasn't even close to meeting the statutory 

And I most especially am appreciative of your 
efforts to keep the California film industry in California, and 
keep the jobs here, and keep the industry, help with its growth 
and vitality. You've done that, and those are good things. And 
I'm glad you're doing those. 

Regardless of the outcome of this, I assume 
you'll keep doing that, and that's good. 

Let me not talk any more and just ask if there's 
comments or questions. Yes, Senator Hughes. 

SENATOR HUGHES: Who's coming up to speak next? 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: The opposition. 

SENATOR HUGHES: Before the opposition speaks, I 
haven't made up my mind yet. 

I want to be fair and give you fair chance to 
express where you're coming from so I can get an opportunity. 
That's one of the reasons that I don't meet people who are 
aspiring to these positions until the day of judgment. So, my 
mind is unclouded at this point. 

But you mentioned the fact that you were -- and I 
wrote it down -- an expert in healthy air and environment, and a 
specialist in air pollution. 


How did you become a specialist in air 
pollution? I'm really curiouS/ because you said by training you 
were a CPA. From an academic background of becoming a CPA, how 
did you acquire your specialist status? You are a 
self-certified specialist, or have you been certified by someone 
else as a specialist of air pollution? 

MR. CLUFF: No, I've not been certified by 
someone as a specialist. I think the term in this case, air 
pollution control specialist, is a rather nebulous term. I 
think this Committee will have to decide exactly what it means 

SENATOR HUGHES: But is your perception of 
yourself as being an air pollution specialist based on things 
that you have done. 

MR. CLUFF: Yes. I've spent — since 1988, I 
have spent a good portion of my life working directly on an 
across-the-table basis with small and medium sized, mostly 
small employers. From a small General Mills plant to the 
manufacturer of drum heads Remo, to Paper Pack, a paper 
manufacturing firm, on and on. Small businesses that employ 
less than 150 or 200 people who do not know how to fill out 
their permits. Who do not know how to calculate their 
emissions. Who have calculated their emissions wrong and 
been -- are facing potential fine, or who have received a 
notice of violation, or a notice to comply and are scared and 
don't know what to do. 

These are people who are not expert in any sort 
of environmental regulation. They're just trying to get along. 


They're just trying to run a business. 

The service I've provided since 1988 or 1989 is 
to help those people through a rather complicated and difficult 
process. And that extends to any problem they might have, but 
it's not the greater policy issues. It's not the technology of 
how NOX and SOX are formulated, or how ozone affects the 
environment. Those are not issues that I have expertise in. 

The area that I have expertise in is helping the 
guy off the street who doesn't know how to comply figure out how 
to get it done. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Mr. Cluff, on this point, 
these are the ten years, basically, that you were involved in 
one aspect of the film office? You said since '88. That was 
essentially either the Governor's staff, or the county office, 
or the current film office. 

MR. CLUFF: Among them, I oversaw the creation of 
what was at the time the Los Angeles County Film Office inside 
the Economic Development Corporation. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: But I mean, during those -- 

MR. CLUFF: I had an executive director there who 
performed the functions of the Film Office. 

But yes, you're correct. 

SENATOR HUGHES: Then you said that you were 
involved with many environmental groups. 

Are you acquainted with a group that was formerly 
known as the Citizens for a Better Environment, California? 

MR. CLUFF: I've worked with CBE, Citizens for a 
Better Environment. 


SENATOR HUGHES: Do you know that group? 

MR. CLUFF: Yes. 

SENATOR HUGHES: And now they have a new name 
called Communities for Better Environment? 

MR. CLUFF: Yes. 

SENATOR HUGHES: Well, this group wrote me a 
letter. I don't really know them. And in their letter, they 
pointed out two constituency groups of mine that I'm very, very 
concerned about, two cities in my district. One is Lynwood. 
And you know that Lynwood, for a long, long time, has had the 
highest carbon monoxide level in the whole region of Los Angeles 

I've always been concerned about that, because 
Lynwood is a very struggling community, and they're trying to 
get back an economic stronghold. But one of their problems is 
that a lot of the people in Lynwood have older cars. And 
because of the topography of the very location of Lynwood, it's 
in a bad location with stagnant air, and carbon monoxide is even 
harder to get rid of. 

So, the people are a poorer working class 
community, and they can't buy the best of cars and keep them in 
the best of shape. 

And another area where it's very high risk is 
Gardina . Gardina has a low income community suffering from a 
cluster of cancers and other related illnesses that have to do 
with environmental pollutants. 

So, those are two areas in my district. So, as 
you said that you have been involved with environmentalist 


groups, and you're concerned about the health of your family, as 
I am concerned about the health of mine. 

These two, this committee pointed out these two 
communities in their letter. And they say that they think that 
your interest is largely economic. But how can it be economic 
if you won't have any people to get the jobs that you're going 
to create in the area, if all the people are sick, or cancerous, 
or unable to breathe because of the air pollution? 

Why wouldn't this group be for you instead of 
against you? And what's so persuasive on my part is the fact 
that they talk about two areas that I know are having great 
trouble economically and environmentally. 

So, how do you answer that? 

MR. CLUFF: I think it's very difficult to 
separate out the economic issues from the environmental issues. 
On the one hand, without a healthful environment, we can't 
attract new employers, you know. And on the other hand, without 
a healthy economy, we can't employ those people. So, it is 
important to strike a balance. 

Let me tell you what I'm concerned about 
specifically with regard to this issue. 

Seven years ago, the Senate passed a bill. Senate 
Bill 2566, which is a toxics bill, which in the first phase 
Identified 348 companies that are toxic emitters. Of those 348 
companies that were identified to be emitting toxics, potential 
carcinogens, at a risk level of more than one hundred in a 
million, only 150 of those companies have had technical analysis 
performed by the District on them. That means that less than 50 


percent of the companies have been reviewed by District staff, 
even though we've had 15 full-time employees and 5 full-time 
outside contractors, and more than 7 years to look at them. 

That's issue of environmental justice. It 
exposes those communities to undue carcinogenic risk, and it's 
an issue that has to be dealt with, clearly and concisely. 

SENATOR HUGHES: So, what would you do? What 
proposal would you have for reducing carbon monoxide levels and 
the ozone levels in the Basin, specifically in these two cities 
that I brought up, Lynwood and Gardina? What solutions would 
you propose to them? 

MR. CLUFF: I'm not sure that I know the specific 
solutions as I sit here. I can tell you that I am committed to 
working with those communities and CBE to identify the best 
possible solutions to put forward. 

The one thing that I have done already is that 
I've supported the creation or the establishment of a workshop 
on toxics to relook at the issue of toxic emissions, that we 
need to look at the way -- the standards that we've set, and we 
need to take a look at how those are impacting the communities. 

In terms of carbon monoxide specifically and 
ozone issues specifically, I would look forward to an aggressive 
staff bringing forward appropriate rules and to supporting those 
rules in order make sure that those communities have equal 
access to healthful air. 

SENATOR HUGHES: I have another question to ask 

Do you think that the concern about the 


disproportionate effects of air pollution and other 
environmental hazards on the minority and low income community 
is justified? 

MR. CLUFF: Yes, I do. 

SENATOR HUGHES: Or are they just crying poor? 

MR. CLUFF: No, I think if you'd have asked me 
the same question five years ago, I might have had -- I would 
have questioned the concept. 

But I believe strongly that there are areas of 
what we call toxic hot spots where communities are 
disproportionately affected, and they're affected strongly by 
the emissions of toxics which can damage the health of people. 

SENATOR HUGHES: Do you think that is contrived 
or planned that way? That these communities are not as 
sophisticated or as well versed on environmental issues, or do 
they have the luxury to be active in the environmental groups as 
do more middle class areas? 

MR. CLUFF: I think historically, they probably 
have not had access to the kind of lobbyists that the business 
community has had. 

SENATOR HUGHES: Nobody needs a lobbyist to 
represent them if they just can't breathe. Nobody needs to 
convince me if I'm an asthmatic that I can't breathe, if I live 
in the Basin that's filled with carbon monoxide. So, that's not 
a good excuse. 

All right, let's get back to the workshop -- 

MR. CLUFF: I guess I was trying to agree with 


SENATOR HUGHES: Okay. Let's get back to the 
workshop thing that you talked about. You said that you would 
encourage more workshops. 

This is to educate the uneducated about the 
quality of air that they should be breathing? How much good is 
that going to do them? 

MR. CLUFF: No, I'm sorry. What I'm speaking 
about specifically is, at this point, an effort to educate the 
governing board at the South Coast District. 

What you'll note is that many members of the 
District have turned over since toxics rules were adopted some 
years ago, and that there is a lack of understanding on the 
Board about the negative consequences of toxic emissions and the 
actual risks that can caused, that the actual risk of causation 
of cancer, asthma, and other issues. 

What I've asked, supported and asked for, is that 
we revisit those, the Board, so that we can revisit the issue of 
toxic emissions, and analyze the District's current standing on 
those issues, as well as look at the failures of the District in 
pushing forward on the toxics bill. 

SENATOR HUGHES: Now, looking at the statute, it 
clearly defines the kinds of persons that they think would be 
best qualified for fulfilling the position that you seek. And 
that's, number one, a physician -- not just any old physician, 
but a physician with training and experience in the health 
effects of air pollution. 

Don't you think that a physician with expertise 
would be the best person to protect my constituents in Lynwood 


and in Gardina, realizing that those cities have these 
problems? Do you think you could compare yourself to someone 
like that? 

MR. CLUFF: I wouldn't pretend to make that my 
area of expertise or specialty. 

I would tell though -- and you know. You've been 
an elected official for years. You're very astute at these 
things — that there can be more to just understanding the 

I have a unique area of expertise. I know how to 
move forward critical issues, and I'm committed to moving 
forward on the issues of protecting public health, particularly 
in disadvantaged areas. And I think that I can do a very good 
job of that using my area of specialty. 

I am not a doctor. 

SENATOR HUGHES: The person who's sitting next to 
you, an imaginary person, is an environmental engineer. 

What could this environmental engineer offer that 
you couldn't offer, because you all ready told me that you were 
a specialist in this area, even though not trained academically, 
but trained practically? 

MR. CLUFF: I think that an environmental 
engineer would have a very detailed technical expertise. It 
might depend on the specific area, but probably would have a lot 
better understanding of how NOX reacts to sunlight, how it gets 
converted, what the specific effect of ozone is from a chemical 
standpoint . 

SENATOR HUGHES: Then you've gone through the 


next person, which is the third category, in which they talked 
about a chemist. And you just pointed out that a chemist could 
piece these things together and tell us about the chemicals in 
the air and in the environment. So, that you don't fit Category 
One, Two, or Three. 

But then there's a meteorologist. What would the 
meteorologist be able to contribute that you haven't been able 
to contribute? 

MR. CLUFF: I would imagine that he would be able 
help us understand how weather conditions and patterns might 
affect smog in particular areas, and across the Basin generally. 

SENATOR HUGHES: Well, you know, this really kind 
of bothers me, because I'm asking you for documentation as to 
how you acquired your specialty, because you said, I've been a 

Well, I've been on boards. I've been on some 
kind of commissions, but never on anything that I wasn't 
academically prepared to be on. 

So, I've been trying to find, and I'm an 
acamedician by profession. I'm trying to find, I'm reading your 
vita and your experience. I'm trying to find the academic, the 
way that you master academic knowledge. 

Sometimes there are more things that you can 
learn by not just being in the classroom, but by being out into 
the industry and finding out. 

How did you accumulate this? I look at your work 
experience. You are on the Council of Laborers. How did that 
prepare you for this? 


You were on the Foundation for Fair Contracting. 
How did that prepare you for this. 

MR. CLUFF: I don't think that's me. 

SENATOR HUGHES: No, I'm sorry. I'm looking at 
the wrong one. I was wondering. That's why I was confused. 

I know I looked at it before, and I was still 
trying to find out how you were prepared, other than your CPA 
experience? How did you pick up this knowledge and -- 

MR. CLUFF: As a practitioner, what I have been 
is an ombudsman, a person to work between those affected by 
regulation and those who regulate. It's a very specific area of 

I have set and worked with thousands of 
businesses over a long period of time on specific air quality, 
air pollution control issues. How they get their permits. What 
the permits require. How they file the permits. How they 
comply with BACT requirements. How they get through new source 
review. How they find emissions when emissions aren't 
available. Taking them Through inventories of emissions that 
can be purchased. 

I've dealt with those businesses, one-on-one, 
person by person, problem by problem. 

SENATOR HUGHES: All right. You were Controller 
for the Burket Contromatic Corporation of Orange County. How 
did that prepare you? 

MR. CLUFF: I think my training, first of all as 
the Controller for Burket Contromatic, I was also responsible 
for all their manufacturing inventory control and distribution 



SO/ what my training, I think, as a certified 
public accountant and as a corporate controller has done is 
given me a good understanding of process and procedure, and how 
to work through complex problems on behalf of companies in order 
to solve their air quality issues. 

My actual specialty and expertise in air quality 
did not come until after I left Burket Contromatic, however, 
when I started the Community Air Quality Task Force program, and 
when I started the L.A. Means Business program. 

SENATOR HUGHES: As the Associate Director for 
L.A. County Film Office from '87 to the present time, how did 
that help you to develop this expertise in air quality? 

MR. CLUFF: Again, working — although, I think 
you'll find that until the last couple of years, that's been a 
fairly small portion of my time, perhaps 10 to 15 percent of it. 

I've worked with numerous companies in the 
entertainment industry on, for example, film development, film 
labs development, labs where they develop film for movies, and 
their best available control technology. 

SENATOR HUGHES: What did that have to do with 
air quality? 

MR. CLUFF: Because they have air quality issues 
as well that have to be worked through with the AQMD. 

SENATOR HUGHES: Only air quality issues as it 
would help them to reach, to meet the qualifications to be able 
to function. 

MR. CLUFF: Yes. 



MS. HUGHES: So, that's remote. 

And then from '80 to '84, you were production 
manager for Crystal Specialties, Incorporated, in Monrovia. 

How did that help you to develop your air quality 

MR. CLUFF: Well, Crystal Specialties is a galium 
arsenide manufacturer that has especially innovative methods for 
growing horizontal crystals in the semi-conductor manufacturing 

I was there trained very specifically in a number 
of technical areas, including the analysis of stress through the 
crystal, the growth. That is, the temperature variations versus 
the chemical combinations of arsenic, and galium, and talerium, 
and selenium. 

SENATOR HUGHES: Did that help you to develop 
this expertise? 

MR. CLUFF: It gave me a very good background in 
chemical and physical properties, and -- 

SENATOR HUGHES: This is what I'm struggling for. 
I'm trying to find out what work experience that you had that 
helped you to develop the expertise that you said you have, 
right? So, I'm having a problem. 

I went through all of these categories, from 
physician, to chemist, to environmental engineer, to 
meteorologist, to all of these other things that you said. 

Your work experience, it sounds like the only 
work experience that really helped you was this one that you 
mentioned. And I'm glad you mentioned that, because I've been 


looking for something. 

MR. CLUFF: I've spent an awful lot of time with 
the actual rules where they affect the business community. 

SENATOR HUGHES: No, you talked about you spent 
time with rules. 

I'm talking about spending time with expertise. 
You have become an expert in knowing what the rules are, but 
knowing what the rulings are doesn't tell us what effects they 
will have on your community. 

You know, I really get concerned, because I want 
Lynwood to succeed economically. I want Gardina to succeed 
economically, just as I want all of these other communities 
within the 25th Senatorial District to succeed economically. 

I know one of the problems that we have, we don't 
have enough jobs, and we don't have enough businesses, small or 

So, I want to hear the- rest of the testimony, and 
maybe before we get finished with all of this, you can really 
point your finger to the reasons why you believe you have 
developed into an expert in air pollution environment, not just 
your service on the Board. Because I'm looking for that 
expertise that's going to save the lives of my constituents. 

So, I'm not going to ask you any more. Maybe 
when I hear the other testimony, you can react to them, if the 
Chairman will allow you to, and then you can say, "See, that's 
where I have developed my expertise." 


SENATOR AYALA: Mr. Cluff, other than the litany 



of letters that I indicated earlier that were from environmental 
groups who oppose your nomination or your confirmation, every 
member of the Board of the South Coast Air Basin Board in my 
area, except for one, also opposes your confirmation, saying 
that you're very disruptive at those meetings. 

Can you tell us why that is so? Every member of 
your Board that lives in my area are not very happy with you. 

MR. CLUFF: They said that I'm disruptive at the 

SENATOR AYALA: In fact, the Chairman mentioned 
it. That's what reminded me that I have an indication that 
you're very disruptive at the meetings. I don't know what they 
mean by that. 

MR. CLUFF: I think the Chairman very accurately 
described many of my past involvements with the District. 

On the Board, I think that I have been a very 
good participant, and that I've worked very well, as I mentioned 
on specific rules with the NRDC and with the Coalition for Clean 
Air on very specific -- very specific rules. 

SENATOR AYALA: But you indicated that you were 
somewhat of a champion in the clean air movement. We are the 
recipients in my county of the dirty air from Orange and L.A. 
with the intrusion from the west. 

These people would be behind you 100 percent if 
you were really, truly cleaning up the air in our area. 

So, why would they be in opposition to you if 
you're doing such a good job? 

MR. CLUFF: Well, I'm always a little shy of 


trying to speak for other people. In other words, to attribute 
what their intent is. 

SENATOR AYALA: I respect that. 

MR. CLUFF: I would say that I think I had a very 
good relationship with all until the vote was taken on the 
contract. That's what I think. 

SENATOR AYALA: Thank you. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: We'll ask for other comment, 
but I just would like to point out that of the twelve members 
who serve on this Board, eleven of the twelve are elected 
officials or public members. 

There's only one position reserved for the 
specific technical experts that we've talked about. I don't 
think there ought to be twelve out of twelve who are public or 
elected members. And that, again, goes to the qualification 

Let me ask, we left off with opposition comment. 
Does anyone wish to come forward with your comment? 

MR. WHITE: Mr. Chairman, Members, my name is 
John White. And I'm here today representing the Sierra Club, 
the League of Conservation Voters, the Coalition for Clean Air, 
and the National Resources Defense Council in opposition to this 

Senator Lockyer's observations about Mr. Cluff's 
experience, I think, mirrors the concerns that we have. We 
believe that he is not qualified as an air pollution control 
specialist by his experience, by his training, and most of all 
his temperament as demonstrated over the years. 


We worked closely with Senator Presley on the 
legislation that put this provision in the statute. And Senator 
Ayala, I know you recall the hearings that we had with Senator 
Presley, and the problem of lack of accountability with some of 
these local officials that got appointed to do the Board. 

And there was a determination that the Senator 
made that at least one of the members of this Board needed to be 
an expert in the subject matter. 

We think that Mr. Cluff is an articulate, able 
spokesperson for the views that he represents, but that that is 
not a substitute for experience and expertise. 

His recent thoughtful comments, we think, belie 
his track record in attacking the institution and the 
individuals charged with carrying out this mission. 

The campaign against the incumbent Mayor of 
Covina, who was recalled on the grounds -- I think primarily 
that he did not vote with Mr. Cluff 's view -- was Henry Morgan, 
who's a fine elected official. Mayor of Covina, driven from 
public service as part of this atmosphere that was created by 
those who wished to change the course of air pollution control. 

We think that despite the fine words and comments 
and friendly gestures of recent months, that there's no evidence 
in his tenure to date that he has an abiding interest or 
commitment to public health or the environment compared to what 
has gone on before. 

We think that the record speaks for itself. The 
only action that he took that we can find in the records was to 
co-author a resolution on a toxic workshop by Marvin Browdy. 


And then, after four months in office, to make the motion to 
vacate the chair of the Executive Officer. 

We think that part of what's happening at the 
District is a deterioration in the leadership qualities at the 
Board level. It's becoming in many ways more political than any 
agency, except for maybe the MTA. And we think that this is 
not the course that should be taken. 

For all the disagreements over the years with the 
course of action of the District and the controversy from the 
business community, from the environmental community, back and 
forth, the progress has been steady. There has been movement 
and progress. 

We think that Mr. Cluff is a part of the 
community of voices in Los Angeles that has contributed to the 
debate, but we don't think that he is a part of the solution for 
changing the drifting long phenomenon. 

And despite cordial personal relationships among 
many of the groups that have worked with him, the environmental 
community is unanimous in its opinion about his fitness to 
serve, and we would urge you to defeat his confirmation. 

Thank you. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Let me just keep calling 
witnesses. If there's anyone who wishes to ask a question, just 
interject yourself. 

MR. PRICE: Mr. Chairman and Members, my name is 
Pete Price, representing the California League of Conservation 

We also oppose the appointment simply on the 



grounds that the nominee does not meet any of the requirements 
set forth in the statute. 

You know, Senator Lockyer made a point a few 
moments ago that only one of the twelve Board positions is 
designated for a specialist of the sort described. A lot of us 
come to our current positions as generalists, and generally 


that's fine and can be valuable. 

But this statute calls for a specialist, and not 
just any specialist, because based on the testimony today, it 
sounds like Mr. Cluff is a regulatory compliance specialist. 
But he is not a specialist of the particular sort called for in 
the statute. And it's very important to have a Board member of 
that sort . 

This Board deals with issues that are 
scientifically very technical and very complex. And it is very 
important for there to be at least one Boa:rd member who is -- 
has a strong technical grounding in these issues so that he can, 
when needed, challenge staff, other interested parties, other 
Board members, on the credibility of their arguments. 

So, we're very concerned that a person who really 
meets the test be appointed to this position. For that reason, 
we oppose this nomination. 

Thank you. 

MR. BROAD: Mr. Chairman and Members, Barry 
Broad on behalf of the California Conference Board of the 
Amalgamated Transit Union, and the California Teamsters Public 
Affairs Council, and the United Food and Commercial Workers. 

The opposition of these organizations is based 


primarily on the same opposition that you've heard of from the 
environmental community. 

Let me say this. This is somewhat unique in the 
sense that the opposition was generated in Southern California 
by these various organizations, Southern California entities: 
Joint Council 42 of the Teamsters; Local 770 of the United Food 
and Commercial Workers; and the large ATU local in Los Angeles, 
Local 1277. It did not originate up here. It's clearly a 
matter involving concerns within Southern California about this 
appointee . 

And I think it is very much an issue about 
devisiveness and rancor being added to the issues surrounding 
air pollution control. 

So, on behalf of these clients, I would urge you 
to deny this confirmation. Thank you. 


MR. SHABAZZ: Thank you. Senator Lockyer and 
Members of the Committee. 

Some of what I may present is a little 
repetitive, it's already been said, but it's written out and I'm 
going to read it. 

My name is Rahman Shabazz. I'm here today on 
behalf of the Los Angeles League of Conservation Voters. 

I have a statement that I'm going to read on 
behalf of the League, but first I'd like to add that I'm also 
President of the Community Coalition for Change, which is an 
environmentally concerned community-based organization located 
in the Athens Park area of South Central Los Angeles. 



SENATOR HUGHES: That's in my district. 

MR. SHABAZZ: Absolutely, Senator Hughes. 

The Coalition represents hundreds of registered 
voters . 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: The Greek part of your 
district, Athens Park. 

Excuse me, go ahead, sir. 

SENATOR HUGHES: It could be the Greek part if 
they belonged to fatter national organizations. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Your turn. Go ahead. 

MR. SHABAZZ: The Coalition represents hundreds 
of registered voters but also oppose the confirmation of 
Mr. Cluff. Reason, because for the past three years, our 
community has fought with the toxic waste transfer and treatment 
facility that is trying to obtain a permanent permit to operate 
in our neighborhood. 

While today, many state, county, and federal 
government officials are listening to what we've had to say 
after three years, in the beginning, when we first started this 
struggle, it was only AQMD, under the leadership of Dr. Jim 
Lents, that listened. Nobody else seemed to care; nobody else 

We believe that because of Mr. Cluff 's support 
for small business, communities like ours, besieged by 
unhealthy, pollution generating small businesses would not get 
the same consideration from AQMD because of Mr. Cluff 's 
influence on the AQMD boards. 

We feel small business must be regulated, and 


especially when it endangers the health and welfare of people. 

We are for jobs. We need jobs in our 
communities. But we cannot create jobs at the risk of human 

We believe with respect to the Los Angeles League 
of Conservation Voters and our position, we strongly oppose the 
confirmation of Cody Cluff as the Governor's appointee to the 
South Coast Air Quality Management District, District's 
governing board. 

California law states that the member appointed 
by the Governor shall be either a physician who has training and 
experience in health effects of air pollution; an environmental 
engineer; a chemist; a meteorologist; or a specialist in air 
pollution control. California Health and Safety Code Section 
40420 (c) . 

The person that preceded me, one of the gentlemen 
that preceded me said that we should not hold Mr. Cluff to the 
standard of this regulation. 

I disagree. I believe that when human life is 
involved, we take the precautions necessary to safeguard their 
life, and this is why we created such a Health and Safety Code. 

And I believe, to the contrary, that we should 
hold Mr. Cluff to that statute as it's written. Mr. Cluff does 
not meet the qualifications. Therefore, we oppose his 

In addition to not meeting the qualifications/ 
Mr. Cluff has not demonstrated the leadership and commitment 
that is necessary to serve as a member of AQMD's governing 


board. The AQMD is the regional governmental agency responsible 
for ensuring that air pollution emissions in the South Coast Air 
Basin are reduced/ and that public health is protected. 

Many letters opposing Mr. Cluff s confirmation 
have been submitted by leading members of several environmental 
organizations, the labor community, and individuals. Several 
very cited references regarding Mr. Cluff 's lack of knowledge, 
commitment and leadership necessary to carry out the 
responsibilities of the AQMD Board. 

For example, Communities for a Better Environment 
included the following statement in its letter opposing 
Mr. Cluff 's confirmation. "Cody Cluff has been a highly visible 
leader in the unending campaign to render the South Coast Air 
Quality Management District completely impotent in solving the 
ongoing public health crisis of the worst air quality in the 
United States." 

Another letter opposing Mr. Cluff 's confirmation 
has been submitted by John Murdock, an attorney who has worked 
with Mr. Cluff in Cluff 's position as head of the Entertainment 
Industry Development Corporation. Mr. Murdock states, "I have 
knowledge of Cody Cluff 's wanton disregard for air quality 
issues by virtue of his persistent refusal to enforce laws 
pertaining to the entertainment industry." 

Mr. Murdock cites specific examples in his 
letter. And I have copies of Mr. Murdock' s letter and copies of 
letters from Communities for a Better Environment that I would 
like to share with you if you want copies. 

The South Coast Air Basin still has the dirtiest 


air in the country. In fact, Southern California's air is more 
polluted than the combined pollution of 40 metropolitan areas, 
including New York, Chicago, Philadelphia, Denver, and Houston. 

Air pollution affects our health and our 
children's health. It is imperative that all members of the 
governing board meet the qualifications required by state law 
and demonstrate a commitment to improve air quality and protect 
human health. Qualifications and commitment, both are 
critically important. 

Unfortunately, Mr. Cluff has neither. If the 
South Coast Air Basin is to continue to make progress in the 
fight for clean air and to protect the public health, the AQMD 
must be a leader. This leadership must emanate from the top, 
and that's the governing board. 

Mr. Cluff has not demonstrated this leadership 
during his tenure as a member of the AQM Board. In addition, he 
has aligned himself with other members of the AQMD Board who 
have publicly expressed their intent to severely weaken or 
dismantle the AQMD's authority. Clearly, this is not 

In closing, please vote not to confirm 
Mr. Cluff 's appointment to the AQMD Board. We feel that it 
would be a mistake to the progress that AQMD has made over the 
past ten years. 

Thank you very much. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Thank you, Mr. Shabazz. 

MR. DAVENPORT: Mr. Chairman and Members, I'm 
Allen Davenport. I'm representing the Service Employees 



International Union here. 

First of all, I just -- I think I want to endorse 
all the remarks of the previous speaker. I don't think there's 
much I can add to that . 

Just to reiterate that our view is that Mr. Cluff 
does not meet the qualifications here. He said himself, he's an 
economic development professional. He helps people with the 
paperwork, the notices, the responses. I think that is what a 
person trained as a CPA is probably pretty good at. 

But it's clear to us that what we're looking for 
here is a specialist in air pollution control who is a 
scientist, a technician. Somebody who has knowledge of the 
health impacts of air pollution and the problems related to 
that. Mr. Cluff simply doesn't meet that. 

We represent over 100,000 people who live in this 
air quality district, and we'd appreciate your no vote. 


Would you be here in opposition today if 
Mr. Cluff did meet this definition in your opinion? 

MR. DAVENPORT: If he did? 

SENATOR LEWIS: Your principal statement of 
opposition is because he doesn't meet the qualifications as 
mentioned in the Code. 

If he did meet that status, would you still be 
here today in opposition? 

MR. DAVENPORT: I think I would be. I don't know 
if I'd be as effective. 

I've had a number of experiences here in front of 


this Committee, and, you know, there's this element of 
destructiveness about this. 

We have an air quality district that seems to be 
making progress. It used to be 80 days; now it's one day. 

Now, all the sudden, Mr. Cluff is here, and 
everyone is concerned that it's not working, that there's work 
that -- things are getting disrupted. And I'm concerned about 
that, too Senator Lewis. 

SENATOR LEWIS: Three of the other categories are 
environmental engineer, a chemist or a meteorologist. 

Wouldn't it be safe to assume that a lot of 
people that might fit those particular categories would not 
necessarily be expert on the health effects of air pollution. 

MR. DAVENPORT: Well, you know, I guess I'm going 
to read this as something that's in the Health and Safety Code 
for the purposes -- you know, I might argue with a chemist who 
didn't have specialties in this area, okay, just to be clear 
about it, and a meteorologist, you know, who hadn't worked in 
this part of the country. You know, something like that I would 
be concerned about also. 

In this case, it's much clearer here that his 
kind of expertise is, again, is not as a scientist, not as a 

SENATOR LEWIS: As I read the Code, it says a 
physician who has training and experience in the health effects 
of air pollution; an environmental engineer; a chemist or 
meteorologist; or a specialist in air pollution control. 

It doesn't seem to indicate that their being an 



expert in the health effects of air pollution is a necessary 
requirement of the position. 

MR. DAVENPORT: Well, I guess I'm going to stand 
by my statement. 

I think if he was a chemist, and he was an 
organic chemist, or something, I would be concerned that that 
might not be the right kind of chemist for this job. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Other commentary? 

Does any Member of the Committee very any 
additional questions they'd wish to pose? 

SENATOR HUGHES: I just want to react to, I think 
it was Senator Ayala who made some criticism about your being 
disruptive in meetings. 

That doesn't persuade me against you. Sometimes 
you have to be disruptive to change the culture of a group. 

The big problem that I have is not your having 
any experience, except the one that I sort of squeezed out when 
I read your vita, and I was on another page. But that small 
experience that you had in that one firm would have helped you 
in some way. 

I'm very sorry that you didn't really capitalize 
on that experience as you transferred into working with air 
pollution. It seems to me as though you do a good job of sort 
of technical things, as a CPA would do, checking off things to 
make people qualified. And I do understand what CPAs do. 

And you're not checking the things that I think 
that will prolong the life of individuals who function in a 
particular geographical area, especially in the L.A. Basin. 


That's where we've got the most pollution. 

And I get really upset when I see the poor areas 
of my community not supporting you. And I would hope that they 
would be the ones that could support you, because I think in 
this position, you could really and truly help these people. 
Not only to protect their health and the health of their family, 
but by getting jobs so that they could get better running motor 
vehicles, so that they could have houses that are pollution 
free, so that they could have air conditioning and all of the 
other things that go along with a working community. 

So, you just fall short in those particular areas 
for me. And so, I'm just basing the testimony that I heard from 
you today, and I regret that I don't feel strong enough about 
your ability to be able to help the folks that I represent. 

Could you give me a convincing argument why you 
think I should vote for you? 

MR. CLUFF: I'm hard-pressed, Senator, to want to 
border on -- I don't want to argue with people today. 

SENATOR HUGHES: You don't have to argue. You 
have to convince, and that's not an argument. 

MR. CLUFF: I appreciate that. 

I just want to say I really believe that there 
are very few physicians, or meteorologists, or chemists that 
could come before you who would know what BACT is; who would 
understand what best available technology is, and how to go 
about controlling pollution. 

Those are things that I've made a matter of 
specialty. Those are things that -- I haven't just studied them 


in books. It isn't just that I looked at the policy or the 
philosophy of how to do it. 

I've lived it, day in and day out, with companies 
who are facing financial crises, who want to comply and don't 
know how. 

SENATOR HUGHES: But you're talking about 
compliance. I'm not talking about compliance. 

MR. CLUFF: But compliance is how you control. 
It's how we control pollution. Being in compliance is the first 
component to being able to control pollution. 

If we set all the good standards in the world, 
but we don't know how to comply, then we can't save anybody's 
life. We'll just have dirty, ugly air, and we'll either have to 
fine businesses out of the area, or we'll have to live with 
dirty area. 

The work I do brings them into compliance with 
the standards that we've set. It is what makes the air clean. 
It's the scrubbers that clean the exhaust. It's the new 
boilers. It's the research and development techniques. It's 
the implementation cost to get it in, the timeline that it takes 
to implement the control policies. It is what makes it work. 

And it is not chemistry, I grant you. It's not 
a physician. 

It's my area of specialty, which is helping 
companies comply with the rules we've set so that we can have 
cleaner air, so that we can protect our children, so that we can 
en sure that they'll have a better life. 

Somebody has to help them do it. They don't know 


how to do it on their own. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Mr. Cluff, are those 
particular compliance activities still part of your work? 

MR. CLUFF: Yes, they are. I continue to work. 
It becomes a somewhat finer niche now because production issues 
for the motion picture industry are slightly different, although 
I continue to get some phone calls. They are primarily in film 
development labs, the issues of emissions that would come out of 
soil contaminations on lots. 

You probably are aware that a studio lot is like 

• 4 

a miniature city. Everything that goes on in any -- and so, in 
their expansion plans, I deal with them on the traffic control 
portions, the spray paints booths, the f iberglassing. Those are 
all issues that I continue to deal with. 

Significant day-to-day issues with visible burns, 
or the perception of visible burn. It's a pyrotechnic effect 
called smoke effect, those issues. 

Also, movies like Volcano -- probably everybody 
has seen -- or Dante's Peak had significant air quality issues. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: You could mess up the streets. 

MR. CLUFF: Yeah, I did mess up the streets. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: I only wanted to say on that 
that I'm glad you'll still continue to be active. If you're not 
doing the policy work at the Board level at least continue with 
these compliance efforts that you have. 

MR. CLUFF: Of course I will. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: I'm glad that's still part of 


your work. 

Senator Ayala. 

SENATOR AYALA: I was just going to correct 
Senator Hughes. 

I didn't say the man was disruptive. I said 
members that live in my district claim he was disruptive. And 
if it's constructive, it's fine. But to be disruptive just for 
the sake of being disruptive, you know, I think I would like 
somebody to shoot, as far as I'm concerned. 

SENATOR HUGHES: I agree with you on that. 
Sometimes you have to disrupt to get some action in the right 

SENATOR AYALA: I don't know of anyone who is not 
ready to do that, but to do it for the sake of doing it is wrong 
in my book. 

SENATOR HUGHES: I understand. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Did you want to close with any 
comment at all? I think we sort of had a lot of time to hear 
the various points of view. 

Mr. Cluff, I need to start with the comment that 
I found you an impressive person who obviously is bright and 
amenable. And these confirmation votes are difficult because 
they're made in a way sort of like a trial. It's not so much 
just voting on a policy, but you have a person associated with 
it, and that makes it harder, and it's harder to look somebody 
in the eye and cast a vote that they don't particularly want to 

It's not any secret that my strong inclination 


has been to vote against this confirmation. I haven't heard 
anything that changes my mind. 

I was looking for some testimony. When 
Mr. Hewitt was before us, my comment then is that "I'm concerned 
that the Governor has displayed this general pattern of making 
political appointments rather than trying to figure out how they 
fit the statutory requirements for certain kinds of expertise." 

And my complaint is about the appointing 
authority and that pattern than the individual that they've sent 
us in this instance. 

To the extent that there's a record that 
persuades me of anything, it's that there's been this pattern of 
kind of kicking over the table, or upsetting the apple cart 
where ever you've been that worries me. I think it's devisive. 

Now, more than ever, I think we need steady, fair 
and consistent environmental policies and implementation 
strategies in California. I'm worried about whether we're going 
to get that with the current more political mood of the 
governing board. 

So, for that reason, I'm a no vote. 

Senator Lewis. 

SENATOR LEWIS: I would move confirmation. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: We have that motion. It needs 
no second. If you'll call the roll, please. 

SECRETARY WEBB: Senator Ayala. 


SECRETARY WEBB: Ayala No. Senator Brulte. 



SECRETARY WEBB: Brulte Aye. Senator Hughes. 


SECRETARY WEBB: Hughes No. Senator Lewis. 


SECRETARY WEBB: Lewis Aye. Senator Lockyer. 



It fails two to three. 

CHAIRM7\N LOCKYER: Thank you, sir. 

We need to move the matter to the Floor for their 

action on it 


CHAIRMT^ LOCKYER: So, we have that motion. 

Is there an objection to send the matter to the 
Floor for their vote? 

What happens is, if it's not acted on by the 
Floor, there's no final resolution until the year runs out. 

SENATOR BRULTE: So he stays on the Board. 
That's fine with me. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: We can record three- two on 
sending it to the Floor. That may be the easier way. 

SENATOR LEWIS: The specific motion is to send it 
to the Floor? 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: There will be a motion on the 
Floor then to confirm him. 

SENATOR LEWIS: Better make it three-two. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: That will be the order. 

[Thereupon. This portion of the 


Senate Rules Committee hearing was 
terminated at approximately 4:20 P.M.] 




I, EVELYN J. MIZAK, a Shorthand Reporter of the State 
of California, do hereby certify: 

That I am a disinterested person herein; that the 
foregoing transcript of the Senate Rules Committee hearing was 
reported verbatim in shorthand by me, Evelyn J. Mizak, and 
thereafter transcribed into typewriting. 

I further certify that I am not of counsel or 
attorney for any of the parties to said hearing, nor in any way 
interested in the outcome of said hearing. 


^ IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 
day of '- — j^^.^^.^,.^-^ , 1997. 

K. S^f-^^ 

Shorthand Reporter 



Additional copies of this publication may be purchased for $3.50 per copy 
(includes shipping and handling) plus current California sales tax. 

Senate Publications 

1020 N Street, Room B-53 

Sacramento, CA 95814 


Make checks payable to SENATE RULES COMMITTEE. 
Please include Stock Number 330-R when ordering. 


C( <^ T 
rU) . 2 I 


JUL 1 7 1997 






ROOM 113 


MONDAY, JUNE1 6, 1997 
2:03 RM. 

331 -R 

Reported by 




ROOM 113 


MONDAY, JUNE 16, 1997 
2:03 P.M. 

Evelyn J. Mizak 
Shorthand Reporter 










GREG SCHMIDT, Executive Officer 

PAT WEBB, Committee Secretary 

NANCY MICHEL, Consultant on Governor's Appointments 




RICHARD A. BECKER, Ph.D., Director 
Environmental Health Hazard Assessment 


California Manufacturers Association 



Desert Citizens Against Pollution 


California Communities Against Toxics 


University of California, Irvine 


California Association of Professional Scientists 


California Association of Professional Scientists 


California Association of Professional Scientists 


JAMES N. SEIBER, Director 

Center for Environmental Sciences and Engineering 

University of Nevada, Reno 

GEORGE RAUGH, President 
Volunteers for a Healthy Valley 




Proceedings 1 

Governor's Appointees; 

RICHARD A. BECKER, Ph.D., Director 

Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment 1 

Background and Experience 1 

Witnesses in Support: 


California Manufacturers Association 14 


Witnesses in Opposition; 


Desert Citizens Against Pollution 21 


California Communities Against Toxics 22 

Witness in Support; 

RONALD C. SHANK, Director 

Environmental Toxicology Program 

University of California, Davis 25 

Questions by CHAIRMAN LOCKYER re; 

Review of Critical Documents 26 

Witnesses in Opposition; 


California Association of Professional Scientists .... 27 

Questions by CHAIRMAN LOCKYER re: 

Scientists' Petition of Objection 

to Confirmation 27 

Questions by SENATOR LEWIS re; 

Number of Scientists Who Signed 

Petition 28 


California Association of Professional Scientists .... 29 

Questions by CHAIRMAN LOCKYER re: 

Records Retention Policy 30 

Chronology of Retention Policy 31 

Responsibilities as Deputy Director 31 

Committee's Request for All Internal 

Documents while Deputy Director 32 

June 2 6 "Destruction" Memo 33 

Chronology of Records Retention Policy 34 

Budget Factor Vs. Retention Factor 35 

Questions by SENATOR AYALA re: 

Responsibility as Deputy Director 

for Shredding Documents 36 

September 9th Memo to Section Chiefs 37 

Policy Not Rescinded until After 

Critical Article in Wall Street Journal 38 

Statements and Questions by CHAIRMAN LOCKYER re: 

September Memo is Budgetary 40 

Discontinuation of Shredding Policy 

Only after Criticism in Press and Lawsuit 40 

Current Statements are Disingenuous 41 

Current Position of Former 

Directqr of OEHHA 41 

Questions by SENATOR BRULTE re: 

Chronology of Records Retention 

Policy 41 

Statements by CHAIRMAN LOCKYER re: 

September 9th Memo is Budgetary 44 

Attempt to Disassociate from 

Shredding Policy of Department 44 

Pattern of Politics Affecting Management 
Decisions in Department 44 


Questions by SENATOR BRULTE re: 

Shredding Policy Put in Abeyance on 

Third Day in Office as Director 44 

Timeline of Rescission of Policy 44 

Questions by CHAIRMAN LOCKYER re: 

Memo Regarding Work Plans 45 

Department Policy of Shredding Documents 

Was Inherited from Former Director 46 

Participation in Discussions of 

Shredding Policy 46 

Discussion with Counsel before Shredding 
Documents 47 

Minimal Discussion of Shredding Policy 

Prior to April Directive on Documents 47 

Resumption of Testimony by MS. HAYNIE 48 

Questions by SENATOR BRULTE re: 

Retention Policy Is Constitutional 

Issue 49 

Questions by CHAIRMAN LOCKYER re: 

Other Discussions about Records 

Policy 50 

Director's April, '97 Meeting 

with CAPS 51 

Questions by SENATOR BRULTE re: 

April, '97 Meeting with 

Director and CAPS 53 

Use of Term "Good" Science 53 

Resumption of Testimony by MS. HAYNIE 54 

Questions by CHAIRMAN LOCKYER re: 

Study of Indoor Air Quality in Schools 56 


Questions of MS. HAYNIE by SENATOR BRULTE re: 

Never Personally Participated in Meetings 
regarding Indoor Air Quality Study 57 

Funding for Project 57 

Questions of DR. BECKER by SENATOR BRULTE re: 

Funding for Indoor Air Quality Project 57 

Current Status of Project 58 

Questions by CHAIRMAN LOCKYER re: 

Discontinuance of the Indoor Air 

Quality Survey 59 

Questions of MS. HAYNIE by SENATOR BRULTE re: 

Need for Department of Education to 

Be Involved in Such Survey 59 

Participation in Working Group 60 

Resumption of Testimony by MS. HAYNIE 60 

Questions by SENATOR HUGHES re: 

Why Ethnicity Was Stricken from 

Anglers ' Questionnaire 61 

Staff Counsel ' s Advice 62 

Resumption of Testimony by MS. HAYNIE 63 

Witness in Opposition: 


Former Employee at OEHHA 

California Association of Professional Scientists .... 64 

Questions by CHAIRMAN LOCKYER re: 

Destruction of Records 67 

Questions by SENATOR BRULTE re: 

Criticial of Appointee for 

Implementing Policy of Superior 68 

Legality of Document Shredding 

Policy 68 


Position on Implementing Policies 
Directed by Superiors 69 

Interactions with DR. BECKER 70 

Position on Reversal of Records 

Policy 70 

Resumption of Testimony by MS. MANN 71 

Questions by SENATOR HUGHES re: 

Sensitive Population in Lead Study 75 

Sources of Inorganic Lead 75 

Resumption of Testimony by MS. MANN 76 

Questions by CHAIRMAN LOCKYER re: 

Removal of Findings of Blood 

Lead in Final Documnet 78 

Response by DR. BECKER 78 

Questions by CHAIRMAN LOCKYER re: 

Sources of Lead in Children's Blood 80 

Discussion of Sources of Lead in Blood 81 

Questions of MS. MANN by CHAIRMAN LOCKYER re: 

Unwarranted Delay in Process and 

Rewritten Report 82 

Questions of MS. MANN by SENATOR BRULTE re: 

Appropriate Time-frame for Such Study 83 

Response by DR. BECKER 8 3 

Discussion on Time-frame of Lead Study 84 

Questions by SENATOR HUGHES re: 

Lives Lost Due to Delay of Lead Study 85 

Questions of MS. MANN by SENATOR BRULTE re: 

Time-Frame of Lead Study 86 

Average Time for Studies to Be Released 87 

Discussion on Time-frame of Lead Study 88 


Questions of MS. MANN by CHAIRMAN LOCKYER re: 

Expanded Modeling Did Not Change 

Conclusions in Lead Study 90 

New Model More Comprehensive 90 

Response by DR. BECKER 91 

Questions of MS. MANN by SENATOR BRULTE re: 

Part of Delay Due to Updating Stale Data 93 

Questions of MS. MANN by SENATOR HUGHES re: 

No New Data Found in Study 94 

Questions of DR. BECKER by SENATOR HUGHES re: 

Meetings with Lead Industry Officials 94 

Frequency of Meetings 95 

Children Most Affected by Lead Poisoning 

Live in Inner Cities 96 

Use of Ethnicity Questions in Lead Study 97 

Resumption of Testimony by MS. MANN 97 

Witness in Support: 


Center for Environmental Sciences and Engineering 

University of Nevada, Reno 100 

Questions by SENATOR AYALA re: 

Record Retention Policy 104 

Witness in Opposition: 

GEORGE RAUGH, President 

Volunteers for a Healthy Valley 104 

Questions by SENATOR AYALA re: 

Exposure to What Substance Ill 

Other Areas Exposed 112 

Population of Town 112 

Response by DR. BECKER 114 

Questions by CHAIRMAN LOCKYER re: 

Reworkings of Any Studies Where 

There Were No Health Hazards 115 

Any Studies Where Conclusions Were 

Too Tilted to Public Health Concerns 116 

Deletion of Conclusion of Scientific 

Panel Regarding Lead Standard 117 

Request to Bring Documentation 

Proving the Reworking of Studies 

that Concluded No Health Risks 117 

Further Rebuttal by DR. BECKER 118 

Questions by SENATOR AYALA re: 

Suggestion that Lompoc Has Less Health 

Problems than Most California Cities 120 

Response by MR. RAUGH 121 

Questions of MR. RAUGH by CHAIRMAN LOCKYER re: 

use Study Did Not Use Children 

from Lompoc Valley 122 

Statements by CHAIRMAN LOCKYER re: 

Need to Continue Hearing at 

Another Time 122 

Time for Additional Oral or 

Written Testimony 123 

Termination of Proceedings 124 

Certificate of Reporter 125 


CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Mr. Becker, I guess, is our 
principal matter to be discussed today. 

Good afternoon, sir. 

DR. BECKER: Good afternoon. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: You may want to start with a 
comment. You're certainly entitled, if you wish. 

DR. BECKER: I would love to make an opening 
statement, if I may. 

It's a pleasure, and good afternoon, Mr. Chairman 
and Senators. I'm Dr. Richard Becker. I'm the Director of the 
Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment. You'll often 
hear our office referred to by a funny acronym, OEHHA, so please 
excuse me if I lapse into the acronym OEHHA. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: It's sort of a cowboy thing? 

DR. BECKER: OEHHA, not he-haw. It takes a while 
to get the right pronunciation of that acronym, so please bear 
with me on that. 

I will try and be brief, but I also want to try 
and be comprehensive in my opening statement. 

As you all know, I was appointed Director by 
Governor Wilson last September, just nine months ago. By 
statute, OEHHA' s very unique. It requires that the Director 
hold the expertise and have a doctoral degree and relevant work 
experience in a biological or medical science. 

I'm sure you all have in front of you my 
curriculum vita, my resume. I have a bachelor's degree in 

chemistry and a doctoral degree in pharmacology and toxicology. 
I'm a board-certified toxicologist by the American Board of 
Toxicology/ and I have conducted and have extensive hands-on 
experience in conducting cancer research, toxicity research, and 
the testing of toxic effects of chemicals. 

I'm a member of a number of professional 
organizations, such as the American Association for Cancer 
Research, the Society for Toxicology, and the Society for Risk 
Analysis. I am, consequently, thoroughly and fully qualified to 
serve as the Director of OEHHA. 

I think you also have in front of you, you 
should, a multitude of letters from the leading scientists in 
the field of risk assessment and toxicology, endorsing my 
confirmation as Director of OEHHA. 

I would just ask you to note that my confirmation 
is endorsed by Dr. John Doull, Dr. Joseph Borzelleca, and Dr. 
Perry Gehring. All of these are past presidents of the Society 
of Toxicology and are world reknown leaders in toxicology and 
risk assessment. The Society of Toxicology is the foremost 
professional organization of toxicologists in the world, and 
it's comprised of more than 35 hundred practitioners. 

My confirmation is endorsed by approximately 40 
other scientists from throughout the University of California 
campuses and from other prestigious California universities, 
such as Stanford, and from leading scientists from other famous 
institutions throughout this country and the world. These 
reknown scientists clearly attest that I'm well qualified and 
respected in field of toxicology and risk assessment, and they 

endorse wholeheartedly my confirmation as Director of OEHHA. 

The mission of OEHHA is to protect public health 
and the environment by using the most up-to-date scientific data 
and methods to conduct thorough and objective evaluations of 
health hazards posed by chemicals. We don't do laboratory 
studies. We review the studies conducted that are by others and 
make health risk assessments. 

Our office, the Office of Environmental Health 
Hazard Assessment, was established as a free standing 
organization when the Governor created Cal-EPA in 1991. Our 
office was established as a free standing organization to ensure 
first and foremost that the health effects of chemicals released 
in the environment are given top priority. And OEHHA was placed 
on an equal stature with the other boards and departments within 
Cal-EPA regulatory programs. This was to make sure that the 
health effects, or the potential health effects of environmental 
chemicals were adequately considered by all the regulatory 
boards and departments. 

This has transpired and will continue to be 
enhanced under my directorship. 

Under my leadership, we are improving through 
greater collaboration and peer involvement in scientific 
studies, through the open exchange of scientific data, and 
through rigorous internal peer review and external, independent, 
scientific peer review. 

There's a common theme in the values that I've 
put forward in my leadership as Director, namely, the need for 
open public processes to foster input from all stakeholders, and 

to foster dialogue and exchange of ideas and scientific 

Mr. Chairman, Senators, for me this is a very 
exciting and challenging time to lead the Agency's department 
devoted to risk assessment. Many of the dogmatic approaches 
dating back to early 1970s are being called into question by new 
scientific findings. We all know that science is not a static 
discipline. New research is published each and every day. It's 
our challenge for us to be sure that we understand this new 
research, and that we can use the latest scientific findings in 
our work. 

It's also difficult for us, because risk 
assessment is an evolving discipline, and we must recognize that 
and encourage the use of the latest scientific information. 

We have just completed, or it has just been 
completed as a result of statutorily mandated review of the 
policies, practices, and procedures of risk assessment, a report 
by the Risk Assessment Advisory Committee, which I would like to 
speak to shortly. This committee has made more than 140 
recommendations for my office and those other organizations 
within Cal-EPA to improve how we do risk assessment and 
environmental health evaluations of chemicals in this state. 

We do very little regulation within OEHHA. We 
are primarily a scientific organization. Our health assessments 
that we prepare are used by other state and local programs, and 
serve as an important component in their actions to set 
regulatory levels to protect public health. 

We, OEHHA, are the environmental leaders of the 

nation in many areas of risk assessment. Our work reverberates 
across America and stimulates change throughout the entire 

We must base our work on science, not on fad, not 
on fear, nor on any personal or political agenda. We must use 
the right science and get the science right. 

In our health assessments, we need to look at the 
whole picture and integrate exposures across all pathways and 
all environmental media, not just looking at air, not just 
looking at water, not just looking at soil, but integrated. 
That's not only good science; it's comprehensive and complete 
science, and it makes good, common, reasonable sense. 

Now, as we develop these new risk assessment 
techniques, we must make sure that they're useful to and used by 
the risk managers, those folks who are making the decisions to 
reduce risks and protect human health and the environment. We 
have to work closely with the risk managers within other Cal-EPA 
boards and departments, and to ensure that these approaches are 
translated into measurable improvements in the public health. 

While some critics have charged that we haven't 
done enough, well, I disagree. I think the track record of 
OEHHA under my leadership in the last nine months proves them 
wrong. We have accomplished a great deal in the last nine 
months. This reflects my commitment to completing our work in a 
timely manner in order to ensure the protection of health of all 
Californians . 

If I may, I have a hand-out now for the 
Senators. These are the accomplishments of OEHHA since 

September of 1996, and I'd briefly like to go through these, 
Mr. Chairman and Senators. 

I think it's quite a track record, and if you'll 
bear with me. First and foremost, I mentioned implementation of 
the recommendations of the Risk Assessment Advisory Committee. 
Later on today, we will hear testimony from the participants of 
the Risk Assessment Advisory Committee, so I'll make my 
statement very short. 

OEHHA was charged by the Governor to lead 
Cal-EPA's efforts across all departments to implement the 
recommendations of the Risk Assessment Advisory Committee into 
strategic plans to ensure the highest standard of risk 
assessment and health evaluations are carried forward in all of 
California's environmental protection programs. 

In implementing the recommendations of the Risk 
Assessment Advisory Committee, we have incorporated plans into 
OEHHA' s strategic plan. We have formed an inter-agency risk 
assessment coordinating work group. We have developed an MOU 
with U.S. EPA to increase harmonization and exchange of 
scientific analysis. 

We have under way a pilot project to develop risk 
assessments using new cancer guidelines, new information, new 
scientific approaches. 

We have initiated a Memorandum of Understanding 
with the Department of Health Services to obtain needed 
epidemiological support for our organization, and we have 
started a program and just concluded last week a very successful 
training effort to train risk managers across the state in the 

principles and applications of risk assessment so that they know 
what risk assessment is and can use that tool in protecting 
public health and the environment. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Who would participate in that 
kind of training? 

DR. BECKER: This is open, Senator. It's for all 
Cal-EPA boards and departments. It's open to public agencies 
throughout. It's a free course that we offer, and we offer it 
in conjunction with and work closely with U.S. EPA Region Nine 
in this program. There are two courses currently offered: risk 
assessment and risk communication. 

Wrth respect to air toxics health risk 
assessment, and again, I'll remind you, these are 
accomplishments just in the last nine months. We have released 
a state-of-the-art risk assessment guidelines for the assessment 
of air toxics using a tiered approach, starting with the 
screening analysis, and including new scientific approaches, 
which include probability analysis, which is one of the 
recommendations of the Risk Assessment Advisory Committee. 

We have developed and released, for public review 
and comment and scientific review, guidelines on cancer 
potencies for 120 chemicals. We have guidelines for systemic 
toxicants which are draft, undergoing internal scientific 
review, for 118 chemicals. This is a good track record. 

With respect to specific chemical risk 
assessments, the health -- we completed the health effects 
assessment of lead in September of '96. In December of '96, we 
completed developmental and reproductive toxic health effects 


assessment for arsenic and cadmium. 

We recently released a health effects assessment 
for environmental tobacco smoke, and we recently released a 
health effects assessment for diesal exhaust. A public workshop 
and scientific workshop will be held on that on July 1st, in 
cooperation with the Air Resources Board. 

With respect to Proposition 65, there will be a 
separate hand-out, but I'd like to just cover a couple of things 
briefly here. 

We have developed a prioritization procedure to 
work on the chemicals that pose the highest hazard and pose the 
highest exposure first. We have just released that as a result 
of a two-year process which involved many, many comments and 
many workshops and a variety of stakeholders. We have 
prioritized 13 potential developmental and reproductive 
toxicants, and 33 potential carcinogens, for which we held 
workshops in November. 

Importantly, we have issued regulations which 
clarify the Notice of Violation requirements for Prop. 65, and 
we have just completed, for draft, hazard indication documents 
for Proposition 65 Scientific Advisory Board review, and these 
are undergoing currently internal scientific peer review. 

Now, one other important aspect that we have 
worked on that's very important to note is pro-active planning 
and priority setting. We have completed just recently OEHHA's 
first strategic plan. And, importantly, we have instituted a 
program of emerging environmental challenges. We have 
scheduled a workshop to occur in conjunction with UCLA this 

coming November in an attempt to identify those issues which are 
down the road a bit -- two, three, five years -- which may face 
challenges for all of Cal-EPA. 

Mr. Chairman, Senators, this is a good track 
record, and this is the track record of my performance as 
Director of OEHHA. 

In all that we do, we strive for transparency in 
our processes and decisions, consistency in our core assumptions 
and science practices, and common sense and reasonableness in 
our actions. 

It is entirely appropriate to err on the side of 
protection of public health and the environment in the face of 
scientific uncertainty, but we must use common sense and 
reasonableness in the application of our assumptions and our 
methods to ensure unrealistic overestimates or unrealistic 
underestimates of risk [sic] . 

As Director of OEHHA, I am committed to champion 
open processes in the pursuit of the most up-to-date science. 

Mr. Chairman, I'm a man of action, a man of 
conviction, and a man of integrity. I will not compromise 
science, despite those who want to do things the old way. The 
attitude of, "just give me a bright line" or "a single number" 
may be easier, but it's not state-of-the-art science, risk 
assessment or risk assessment [sic]. 

Now, upon assuming leadership -- and I will be 
brief, Mr. Chairman — upon assuming leadership and directorship 
of OEHHA, I faced many challenges. We had a problem with a 
flawed records retention policy that was developed under the 


previous director. 

Mr. Senator, Chairmans [sic], when faced with 
this challenge, when this responsibility for administrative 
matters fell under my authority and duties as Director of OEHHA, 
I took prompt and, I think, appropriate action. 

What action did I take? Well, within six days of 
my appointment -- yes, within six days of my appointment as 
Director -- I had my staff check with each section chief to 
ensure that no implementation had occurred. And my staff 
received assurances from the section chiefs that, indeed, no 
implementation of that flawed records retention policy had 

We then directed each OEHHA section chief not to 
implement that policy. That occurred within six days of my 
appointment as Director. 

I then personally reviewed the policy and the 
concerns expressed, and I personally notified all staff within 
OEHHA to take no action, and I rescinded the policy of the 
previous director. 

Mr. Chairman, Senators, in my statements and 
letters written at that time, I relied upon the ascertainment of 
my staff that the policy had not been implemented. Later, upon 
learning that one staff person had discarded materials, I 
instructed my staff to review the matter fully, to document all 
actions, and then we communicated this to set the record 
straight . 

But, Mr. Chairman, Senators, I didn't stop there. 
I directed that a new policy be developed. I insisted that we 


place into concrete, into the core of that new policy, a 
fundamental principle of the scientific method, that when an 
author or a scientist deems his or her work completed, even if 
it's a draft, it's to be designated as a record to be retained. 

If it will please, hand out the new policy. 

Mr. Chairman, Senators, my actions are clear. I 
rescinded, revoked, and got rid of the flawed policy, and I 
implemented a new policy. 

I also directed that before being finalized, the 
new draft records management policy undergo extensive internal 
review by each OEHHA staff scientist, and also undergo review by 
internal and external legal and regulatory experts. I also 
demanded that it undergo thorough public review. 

These are the actions that I took as Director of 
OEHHA to meet these challenges. The policy you have before you 
is a policy that I, as the Director of OEHHA, developed. And 
again, I will remind you that at the core of that policy is a 
fundamental principle of the scientific method, that whenever an 
author deems his or her work completed, even if it's a draft, 
it's designated as a record to be retained. I insisted that be 
the core of a new policy developed under my directorship. 

My actions in this regard exemplified good 
science and good public policy. 

One other issue I'd like to address, Mr. 
Chairman, if I may. Senators, there have been, I think, 
unfounded charges of management interference with staff 
scientists. I wholeheartedly reject such accusations. 

Scientific peer reviewed is what occurs within 


our organization, just like any other scientific organization. 
This IS not management interference. Peer review, scientific 
peer review, is a fundamental principle of the scientific 

Within our organization, the Deputy Director for 
Scientific Affairs is charged with conducting the internal 
scientific peer review of OEHHA scientists' work. The Deputy 
Director of Scientific Affairs is also responsible for 
facilitating external independent scientific peer review. 

What's the purpose of scientific peer review? 
The purpose is to ensure that our work products, our health risk 
assessments, are of the highest scientific quality. Peer review 
is a sound and usual and customary practice in all scientific 

I shall not be faulted for adhering to the 
highest quality science that Californians deserve, that 
Californians expect, and that California taxpayers pay for. We 
will not conduct studies that cannot yield scientifically 
meaningful results. 

It's important to remember that the Deputy 
Director for Scientific Affairs and the Director of OEHHA are 
not run-of-the-mill administrative managers. We are both highly 
qualified and skilled scientists with extensive experience in 
chemistry, toxicology, pharmacology, mutagenesis, 
histopathology, and risk assessment. We are the highest, most 
qualified scientists in our organization. 

In conducting and directing scientific peer 
review of staff scientists' work, we're doing what is expected 


of any and all reputable scientific organizations. 

Mr. Chairman, Senators, OEHHA doesn't make the 
environmental regulatory decisions, but our scientific health 
evaluations serve as the foundation for wise decision-making by 
other boards and departments and by local government agencies. 
We have an absolute obligation to be completely objective and to 
make sure that those making the risk management decisions, and 
those affected by the decisions that are made, are fully 
informed and understand all of the strengths, all of the 
limitations, all of the assumptions, and all of the scientific 
certainties and uncertainties of our health assessments. 

Mr. Chairman, Senators, my vision of OEHHA is 
clear. The actions I have taken reflect that vision. We are an 
organization, a small organization, but we're charged with an 
extremely important mission: to identify the hazards chemicals 
pose to human health and the environment. 

There should be no doubt in anyone's mind of my 
commitment as the Director of OEHHA to the completely thorough 
and completely objective scientific analysis of health effects 
of chemicals and, importantly, to the use of fair and open 
processes . 

Mr. Chairman, Senators, I care deeply about the 
environment and the environmental health of all Californians . 
We have all had family members or friends afflicted by cancer or 
other diseases. I myself have lost loved ones to cancer and 
heart disease. My own son was born with a birth defect which 
necessitated heart surgery at Stanford when he was just sixteen 
months old. 


I have dedicated my entire career to identifying 
the toxic effects environmental chemicals can cause. My work 
has been devoted to alleviating the human pain and suffering 
that can be caused by the unsafe use of chemicals. 

I am intensely committed personally and 
professionally to use my training, knowledge and expertise to 
lead OEHHA as its Director in protecting the public health and 
environment in California for all Californians . 

Mr. Chairman, Senators, I thank you for 
consideration of my appointment as Director. I am pleased to 
answer any questions that you may have. 

Thank you for your patience. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Thank you, Mr. Becker. 

I think there are people who would like to 
testify that have time constraints, so I want to make sure to 
ask anyone in that category. I think I start with Senator 
Campbell, if he wants to come forward, as one of the 
supporters . 

Are there other on the support side that have a 
time problem? 

DR. BECKER: Mr. Chairman, I do have one witness 
who does have a time problem as well. 

SENATOR CT^PBELL: Mr. Chairman, Members, good 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Good afternoon. Good to see 

SENATOR CAMPBELL: It's a pleasure to be here, a 
pleasure to be anywhere. I'm delighted to join with you this 




CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Are you sure you want to get 
into this controversy about chemicals in the workplace and 

SENATOR CAMPBELL: No, I just want to support 
Dr. Becker, that's all. 

I am delighted to be here. And to let those of 
you who are maybe experiencing a loss of hair, to know that it 
does come back. I have a call in to Dennis Rodman to select a 
color, or two or three. 

[Laughter. ] 

SENATOR CAMPBELL: Mr. Chairman, Members, once 
again I thank you for the opportunity to be here today, and I'm 
here to express the California Manufacturers Association's 
support for Dr. Becker's confirmation as Director of the Office 
of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, or as he said, OEHHA. 

As an initial indicator of his qualifications, 
one need only look at his support letters from many of the 
leading scientists throughout the country. However, his actual 
work at OEHHA provides for a clearer picture regarding his 
qualifications. During his brief tenure. Dr. Becker has proven 
his leadership at OEHHA by, among other things, leading 
California's efforts in implementing the recommendations of the 
Risk Assessment Advisory Committee. 

Scientific inquiry depends upon an open 
interchange of information, and Dr. Becker has improved the 
science by outreach and open processes to be sure that all 
relevant data scientific studies are obtained. 


Under his leadership, OEHHA has provided for 
greater internal and external peer review so that there is a 
complete and objective picture of the potential hazards posed by 
chemicals. This is a process that is time consuming but vitally 
important in providing for the advancement of scientific methods 
which will increase our knowledge of how exposure to substances 
affects human health and environment. 

Dr. Becker has not rushed to judgment in listing 
chemical or releasing incomplete risk assessments. Whenever 
the impact is felt -- whether the impact is felt at the 
individual level over health concerns, or at the manufacturing 
level over compliance cost, accurate risk assessments lay the 
groundwork for responsible regulatory actions.- 

Because California maintains such high standards 
for the protection of human health and environment, greater care 
is required in making these decisions. 

Mr. Chairman and Members, CMA is not endorsing 
Dr. Becker because he leans toward one side or the other. In 
fact, our membership, as often as not, disagrees many times with 
the results of OEHHA. We are endorsing him because he insists 
on objectivity at all times. He demands good science, 
thoroughness, and fair and open process, and we believe he will 
serve California well. 

Thank you very much. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Thank you. Senator. 

The next gentleman who has a time constraint. 

DR. BECKER: May I introduce Dr. Warner North. 

DR. NORTH: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, 


Senators, especially for letting me come on first so that I can 
be sure that I attend my son's graduation this evening. 

I'm Warner North. I'm a Senior Vice President of 
Decision Focus, Incorporated, a 150-person firm in Mountainview, 
California that does consulting and contract research in risk 
and decision analysis. 

I am also a consulting professor in the 
Department of Engineering Economic Systems and Operations 
Research at Stanford University, where I teach courses on 
government policy relating to energy and environmental risk. 

Today, I am testifying as an individual, not on 
behalf of Decision Focus, Incorporated, any of its clients, 
Stanford University, or any other organization with which I am 
or have been associated. 

For more than 20 years, I have been active in the 
field of risk analysis, including contract research and 
consulting through Decision Focus, teaching at Stanford 
University, service on committees of the Science Advisory Board 
of the Environmental Protection Agency, and service as an unpaid 
member of boards and committees of the National Research Council 
of the National Academy of Sciences. 

I am co-author of numerous National Research 
Council reports on health risk assessment and its use in 
supporting regulatory decisions on toxic substances, including 
all three of those referenced in the executive summary of the 
October 1996 report of the Risk Assessment Advisory Committee, 
"A Review of California Environmental Protection Agency's Risk 
Assessment Practices, Policies and Guidelines." 

These three National Research Council reports on 
which I worked are: "Risk Assessment in the Federal Government, 
Managing the Process," 1983, "Science and Judgment and Risk 
Assessment," 1994, and "Understanding Risk and Forming Decisions 
in a Democratic Society," 1996. 

I have been active over the past two decades in 
the Society for Risk Analysis, an international professional 
society with over 2,000 members. I served as the elected 
President for this professional society in 1991-92. 

From 1987 to 1989, I served on the Governor's 
Scientific Advisory Panel for Proposition 65. From 1989 to 
1994, I held a Presidential appointment to the Nuclear Waste 
Technical Review Board, an independent federal agency with 
oversight responsibility for the Department of Energy's program 
to develop a repository for high level nuclear waste. 

I came to know Dr. Richard A. Becker through his 
participation in the Cal-EPA staff support for the report of the 
Risk Assessment Advisory Committee. Dr. Becker and I have 
appeared at several professional conferences together, where he 
has very effectively presented the findings and conclusions of 
this report to scientific audiences. 

I am highly impressed with his knowledge and 
scientific background in risk assessment, and with his 
leadership in promoting the changes in Cal-EPA risk assessment 
practices as recommended in the Risk Assessment Advisory 
Committee's report. 

Over the past decade, there have been substantial 
advances, both in the scientific methods used in risk 


assessment, and in the methods for characterizing risk so that 
risk assessment can be more effectively used in support of risk 
management by federal and state regulatory agencies. 

The Cal-EPA Risk Assessment Advisory Committee 
report, the three National Academy of Sciences reports that I 
participated in writing, and the 1997 report of the 
Presidential-Congress Risk Assessment and Risk Management 
Commission all stress the need for disclosure of uncertainty in 
risk estimates and the need for addressing risk issues in proper 
context . 

For example, multiple pathways and multiple 
media -- that is, air, water, food and soil -- may need to be 
considered both in the interpretation of the scientific data 
underlying risk assessments and in the use of mathematical 
models in producing risk estimates. 

It is important to consider both uncertainties 
and risk estimates and the variation in risk that may result 
from differences in susceptibility to toxic agents. For 
example, differences in age, sex, or genetic inheritance, and 
also from differences in exposure resulting not only from 
location, but also from behavior and lifestyle patterns. 

Is also important to avoid having risk assessment 
become an overly complex and time consuming process, and to 
assure that risk assessments address the issues believed to be 
the most important by interested and affected parties among the 

Therefore, risk assessment must be a process that 
is appropriately tailored to the risk management need, rather 


than a one-size-fits-all standard methodology to be applied 
uniformly to all toxic substances. 

I believe that Dr. Becker's understanding of 
these subtle and complex scientific issues makes him 
outstandingly well qualified to serve as the Director of the 
Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment at Cal-EPA. 

Furthermore it is my understanding that he has 
been a strong and effective manager, accomplishing needed 
balance between assuring high quality for OEHHA's work products 
and getting these work products completed in timely fashion. He 
has attempted to establish sound priorities in responding to the 
many demands placed on OEHHA, and to assure a fair and open 
public process such that the Agency's work products are both 
based on good science and responsive to the concerns of 
stakeholder groups among the public. 

In my judgment. Dr. Becker has been doing an 
excellent job since he was appointed Director last September. I 
urge that Dr. Becker be confirmed so that he may continue to 
serve in this position for the benefit of the citizens of 
California . 

Thank you. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Thank you very much. 

Are there questions of the witness at all? Thank 
you, sir. I appreciate you being with us. 

Is there anyone else present, either pro or con, 
who has a time constraint that would wish to testify at this 

MR. TALBOT: I'm grassroots from the Lancaster 



CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Tell us your name. 

MR. TALBOT: My name is Lyle Talbot. I represent 
Desert Citizens Against Pollution. 

We are opposed to this appointment. OEHHA -- I 
have a hard time with that myself -- has a long history of 
ignoring public concerns brought to it, brought in by affected 
citizens. For example, National Cement, the only pay-to-burn 
toxic incinerator, is near Gorman in my community. 

Back in the '80s, some down-winders were at a 
local beauty salon and shared like stories of recent and 
frequent headaches and metallic taste in their mouths. 
Dr. Holtzer from this office made a visit to the area at that 
time and chatted with some local doctors, and promptly dismissed 
the whole matter. 

I'd like to report to you now that National 
Cement has never gotten its federal permit to burn hazardous 
waste, and they will stop accepting hazardous waste to burn at 
that facility on November 11th of this year. That's Armistice 
Day to you old timers; I think they call it Veterans' Day now. 
So, we'll celebrate on Armistice when they throw in the towel. 

When we're talking about our family's health, we 
don't care if the appointee is a Democrat or a Republican, only 
that he or she is competent. 

This office has conveniently forgotten Rosemond 
cancer cluster, among others. Our communities have a right to 
know, and we need a watch dog in this position, not an attack 
dog attacking that right to know. 


Book burning, well, we've already seen enough 
book burning and paper shredding in this century, so please deny 
this appointment. Thank you very much. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Thank you, sir. 

Is there anyone else that has a time problem? 

DR. BECKER: Mr. Senator, may I respond just 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: I don't think you need to with 
each person. Just do it as a summation. 

DR. BECKER: Thank you. 

MS. WILLIAMS: Hi, I'm Jane Williams with 
California Communities Against Toxics. 

Good afternoon. Members of the Committee. 
Senator Lockyer, it's good to see you all again. 

As you know, I represent community groups across 
the State of California. Our organization was started in 1989 
in response to numerous proposals to site garbage incinerators 
and toxic incinerators throughout California. Subsequent to the 
formation of our organization, none of those were sited. 

We have long been concerned about health risk 
assessments in California, and the way in which it is performed 
and the agencies which perform it. 

The Office of Environmental Health Hazard 
Assessment is the agency that stands between us and polluters. 
It is the agency that has the scientific backbone and has the 
scientific resources to assess risk. 

And I want to tell you from my own personal 
experience of looking at many health risk assessments over the 


last five years, that it is a pattern that health risk 
assessments do not assess risk. They do not take a look at 
multi-pathway exposure assessments. 

And to give a case example, the lES incinerator, 
which is an existing medical waste incinerator in Oakland, is 
currently the only regional medical waste incinerator operating 
in the State of California, burns 2,000 pounds an hour of 
medical waste. Of course, in a community of color, in Oakland. 

The health risk assessment never looked at the 
impacts of dioxin and mercury contamination to the fish in the 
Bay. San Francisco Bay is very contaminated. The fish, of 
course, are eaten by Laotians, Asians, communities of color. 
And quite frankly, that is a pattern. 

The rising incidence of cancer, I just received a 
newsletter from Dr. Peter Montague talking about the numerous 
studies that have shown that environmental factors are far more 
important than genetic or inherited factors in cancer. Cancer 
rates differ from country to country, but when people migrate 
from one country to another, within a generation or two, their 
cancer rates have changed from those of their original country. 

This indicates to us that environmental factors 
are an overlooked part of what used to be called the cancer 
epidemic, but what is being called now as the cancer holocaust. 
One in three Americans will contract cancer by the year 2000. 
Many of those will die from it. It is an increasingly 
significant part of our gross national product. The health care 
industry is now 15 percent and rising. 

We were very alarmed to see the document 


retention policy/ especially the wording of this policy, that 
the policy was enacted to, quote, "Protect the public from 
confusion and possible harm." 

We, the communities that are on the front lines 
of toxic exposures, believe that we need to be protected from 
the possible harm from polluters, not from a document retention 

I heard Dr. Becker talk about challenges down the 
road. From being involved, along with my colleague Gina 
Soloman, in the Ed. Stat. Process, which is the process to 
identify testing and screening protocols for endocrine 
disrupting chemicals, it is clear to us from working with our 
colleagues nationwide that California has lost its preeminent 
position as a protector of environmental health and public 
health from toxic chemicals. And we would like to see us retake 
that position. We would like see the Office of Environmental 
Health Hazard Assessment step up to the known threats, not the 
theoretical threats that are affecting us in our communities, 
but to the known threats. 

In order to do this, we don't think that Dr. 
Becker should be confirmed, and we thank you for your time. 


Unless there's anyone else that has a time 
problem, we'll just drop back to support commentary, if there's 
others who want to say something on the support side of the 

DR. BECKER: There are others, Mr. Senator, but I 
think I would like to respond, if I may, Mr. Chairman, just very 



CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Dr. Becker, I asked you to 
wait for summation. Let's do that, please. I want to get all 
the testimony before us as soon as I can. 

Anyone else that wishes to comment, either 
support or opposition? 

DR. BECKER: Professor Shank, please. 

DR. SHANK: Mr. Chairman, Senators, my name 
Ronald Shank. I'm a Professor of Community and Environmental 
Medicine and Director of the Environmental Toxicology Program at 
the University of California, Irvine. 

I've been a basic research toxicologist for 30 
years, and I would like to review for you the credentials for 
Dr. Becker. 

He is one of the best trained and qualified 
scientists in regulatory position in the United States. He is a 
basic research scientist's scientist. He has been formally 
trained and is a basic research scientist in pharmacology and 
toxicology, experimental cancer pathology, and went on as a 
National Cancer Institute fellow to the WHO international agency 
for research on cancer in Lyons, France, where he worked for two 
years under the top two people in that agency, doing basic 
research in chemical carcinogenesis. That is the study of how 
and why chemicals cause cancer. And he's had practical 
toxicology experimental experience as well. 

I mention this because this is extremely 
important in the position of Director of such an office that he 
holds now, because the Director in that position has to 


understand what is meant by good science and science that is not 
so good. One has to be able to discern between scientific data 
that have high credibility and scientific data that do not have 
such high credibility. And Dr. Becker does that outstandingly 
well because he is so well-trained and so objective. He doesn't 
compromise on scientific integrity. 

I'd also like to point out that his international 
respect among his peers in risk assessment is outstanding. I've 
had a chance to see him explain to a wide variety of audiences 
outside the United States, and gain the respect of people from 
Europe and from Asia on more than one occasion. And they will 
come back to him and ask him for his opinion, for his analysis. 

This brings a lot of respect to California, and 
it makes me very proud when I go around different parts of the 
world, and I get compliments on the scientific credentials of 
this new Director. It has helped, and California does have a 
preeminent position worldwide in this area. We can all be proud 
of that. 

And Dr. Becker will do everything he can to 
maintain that, I'm sure. 

I won't take any more of your time. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Let me ask you, sir, if you've 
had an opportunity to review any of the critical documents from 
people involved in the Lompoc study and other such matters? 
That is, those who are critical of the work environment and 
product of Dr. Becker's department? 

DR. SHANK: No, I have not reviewed any of those 
documents . 


CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: This is mostly based on your 
own personal observations in the scientific panels and so on? 

DR. SPi7\NK: Yes, and his reputation. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Thank you very much, sir. 

MR. BAKER: Mr. Chairman, Members, Steve Baker 
with Aaron Read and Associates representing the California 
Association of Professional Scientists who are strongly opposed 
to the confirmation of Dr. Becker. 

I want to make some very general remarks, and 
then following my general remarks, I have two people that can be 
more specific, including a former employee of OEHHA. 

CAPS represents the scientists that work at 
OEHHA. And CAPS is very serious and has never taken a position 
on one of the Governor's appointees. This is the first time 
that CAPS, our group of scientists, has ever opposed one of the 
Governor's appointees to anything, so that this is a fairly 
significant action on their part. 

The reason for their opposition is, the 
scientists that work for the Department, the experts in their 
field worldwide, feel very strongly that Dr. Becker has used 
political considerations instead of scientific considerations. 

We've gotten petitions signed by 20 or 30 of the 
Ph.D.s in the department, expressing in very strong terms their 
objections to Dr. Becker. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Are those public records? 

MR. BAKER: These are employees from the 
department that are, you know, concerned with their employment. 
We'd be happy to get you. Senator, a copy of the petition. 


CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Who did they petition? 

MR. BAKER: They petitioned us, the California 
Association of Professional Scientists to oppose on their 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: But not ones they communicated 
they some departmental superior? 

MR. BAKER: Correct. 

In addition, a bunch of these individuals have 
attended CAPS meetings on their own time. They've traveled; 
they've come to express their, again, their strong feelings in 
opposition to Dr. Becker. 

SENATOR LEWIS: Question. Sorry to interrupt 
you. Just a question of fact. 

How many Ph.D.s did you say signed this 
particular petition? 

MR. BAKER: I saw a petition that had 20 or so of 
about the 55 employees in the department signed a petition in 
opposition. And I attended a meeting that there were another 15 
or 20 employees that showed up in person on their own time on a 
Saturday. And for a group of scientists, that's an unusual 
outpouring, one way or the other, at least in my experience. 

Let me just take a minute to mention one 
document you've heard a little bit about, the records retention 
policy. I'm looking at a June 20th memo from Richard Becker to 
three of the section chiefs regarding the record retention 
policy. This memo's been referred to by the scientists at OEHHA 
as the Nazi memo. You can draw your own conclusions on why they 
feel that way. 


It's a memo that asks the section chiefs to 
prepare and implementation plan. It says, "I will expect to see 
a satisfactory draft from each of the above sections in my 
office by the close of business, Wednesday, June 26th." 

It goes on to say, "I trust my intent is 
completely clear on this matter. It is very important that you 
as section chiefs develop a plan to include a list of 
specifications, appropriate staff time and resources to ensure 
timely compliance with the records retention policy." 

This comes from Mr. Becker, who just told the Committee 
that on his sixth day as the Director, he had a plan to rescind 
the records retention policy. We've heard in the past that 
Mr. Becker has tried to distance himself from the records 
retention policy. 

Again, I think that the June 20th memo speaks for 
itself as far as Dr. Becker's involvement with the records 
retention policy. 

I have with me Ms. Kristen Haynie from CAPS. 

CHAIRMT^ LOCKYER: Is there more comment on the 
records retention policy? We'll listen to that first. 

MR. BAKER: And Jennifer Mann, a former employee 
of the Department, that can get into more detail on these issues. 

MS. HAYNIE: Thank you, Senator. My name is 
Kristen Haynie. I've been representing the scientists for eight 
years. I represent the California Association of Professional 
Scientists. There are 57 members of CAPS at OEHHA. 

To clarify your further question about the 
support of CAPS ' s action, even though 20 to 30 scientists signed 


a statement/ many of them were still afraid to even sign the 
statement going to CAPS, so I've talked to many people on the 
telephone and it's an overwhelming response. 

Regarding the records retention policy, the 
scientists were told in April, 1996, to start devising a plan to 
implement the policy as directed by the department. 

Getting to your question and your point about Dr. 
Becker's role in this -- 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: I notice the dates. He's the 
Deputy Director for Science in EPA, and that's where the memo, 
or the order, or the policy comes from. 

DR. BECKER: No, sir. The policy was issued by 
the Chief Deputy Director, Charles Shulock. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: That's what I'm saying. 

DR. BECKER: Not by me . 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: No, I read the names. 

So this is, "It was my superiors ordered me to do 
it," defense. Is that what we're hearing? 

DR. BECKER: Sir, I would just add — 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Your memo, June 20, you're the 
Deputy Director. 

DR. BECKER: Correct. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: The policy comes down in April 
from the boss, somebody's boss, but at least the Chief Deputy; 
is that right? 

DR. BECKER: That's correct. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: In June, you send the 
E-mail -- I guess it's E-mail — to your subordinates, 


expecting some implementation plan. 

DR. BECKER: Let me place that into context, 
since you've raised the question. 

At that time, in June, we were developing -- each 
section was developing their annual work plan, which include 
budgeting for all of their activities, including administrative 
activities, non-administrative activities such as development of 
the health assessments for lead, or the health assessments for 
diesal, the health effects assessments for Proposition 65. 

As part of the budgeting process, of course, you 
budget time and resources that you have. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Was that your principal 
responsibility as Deputy Director? What was your assignment? 
Was it budgeting and that sort of thing? 

DR. BECKER: No, but part of it was to make sure 
that the annual work plans included all potential, if you would, 
activities, administrative and non-administrative. 

What you've taken out of context -- or what's 
been taken out of context here is simply the Director to include 
this into the draft, if you would, annual work plan. The 
process is to develop a draft annual work plan -- 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Is that your responsibility? 

DR. BECKER: It is the responsibility for the 
section chiefs to develop their annual work plans for each one 
of their sections. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: What was yours as Deputy 

DR. BECKER: My responsibility as Deputy was to 


make sure that they do develop those work plans. And then as 
those work plans are developed, typically what happens, and this 
happens in every organization that I have ever worked for, is 
that you find out that you have budgeted, if you would, for 
more -- or you've spent more than you can -- resources than you 
have. Then you have to adjust those. 

That's why the process is iterative. You develop 
a draft plan. The draft plan is then reviewed. It's reviewed 
by the section chiefs. It's reviewed by the deputy directors, 
by the Chief Deputy, and ultimately by the Director, and then 
finally approved and implemented. 

So, my job at that point was to ensure that the 
section chiefs were developing their draft annual work plans, 
yes . 

CHAIRM7^J^ LOCKYER: We asked to be provided with 
whatever internal documents there may be during this entire 
period of your being Deputy Director. We don't have any other 
memos of this sort; that is, that ask for other submissions. 

Are we just missing them or something, or were 
there not other directives to the office chiefs? 

DR. BECKER: I would have to check on that. 
Senator. I'm sure that there were other information that was 
given out in terms of development of work plan related issues. 

We identified priority action items for each 
section to be included in their work plan. I'm aware of that 
memo. That memo was somewhere around the same time. So, for 
each section, there were certain program priorities that were 


I would say, Mr. Chairman and Senators, that with 
respect to this matter and the rescinded -- the policy that I 
rescinded/ it is still a matter of litigation. So, it may be 
that some of these materials are not available at this time 
because of some litigation issue, and I'm sure you will respect 

I would be glad to consult with counsel and see 
if there's any additional information that we can provide you 

CPIAIRMAN LOCKYER: So, six days after the memo 
that's been talked about asking for timely submission of 
compliance with the shredder rule, you E-mail to section chiefs 
saying, "Do not use the word destruction in your memos." 

Do you have that one with you? 

DR. BECKER: I don't have that one with me. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: It wasn't submitted to us, 
even though we formally discovered them all. It's been hidden 
from us. Now, I happen to know it exists, but do you remember 
sending that. 

DR. BECKER: I don't. I don't recall that at 

But we must understand. Senator, that there are 
ways to handle records other than destroying those. Those are 
archiving those, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera, in terms of 
good record management programs. 

I don't have that in front of me. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Well, it says, "Do not use the 
word destruction." It doesn't say "don't destroy." There is 


kind of a difference, but maybe one that's not obvious to a 
scientist . 

SENATOR BRULTE: Senator, do all the Committee 
Members have a copy of that? 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: No, because we don't have it. 
It's been hidden from us. All we know is someone's memory that 
this memo or E-mail was sent on June 26. 

SENATOR BRULTE: Could we have that person whose 
memory it is come before the Committee and testify? 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: I'll ask if they're available 
as soon as we complete this. 

DR. BECKER: I would be glad, Mr. Chairman and 
Senators, and we hope to resolve this matter, the legal matter 
very shortly. Be happy to share as much information as we can 
at that time. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: I certainly hope you resolve 
it before early September, because that's when your year runs. 

With respect to the dates, we'll hear more about 
this, but so that we're not confused about them, you are 
appointed in early September. The lawsuit is filed October 1st. 
At two minutes to 5:00 on that day, you send an E-mail to your 
section chiefs saying, "Put on hold the record destruction 

So, first of all, it's not six days as you had 
indicated earlier, and it's subsequent to the lawsuit being 
filed by NRDC . 

DR. BECKER: Senator, I would point out that on 
September 9th, the Chief Deputy Director, as I indicated to my 


staff, sent a note to all section chiefs telling them not to go 
ahead and implement the policy. I believe that's part of the 
public record. That was September 9th. That was six days after 
my appointment. 

And on October 1st, I did send a note to all 
staff telling them. So, that is correct. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Is it now Mr. Shulock, that's 
your Chief Deputy, is that who we're talking about on 
September 9? 

DR. BECKER: Yes, Mr. Shulock was the Chief 
Deputy on September 9th; that's correct. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: So, he was the boss that we 
talked about earlier that the memo came from; wasn't he? 

DR. BECKER: At that time in April -- 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: The April memo. 

DR. BECKER: He was Chief Deputy. When I assumed 
directorship, he continued on as Chief Deputy. Yes, that is 
correct . 

After discussing the matter with him after my 
appointment on September 3rd, September 4th, and discussing the 
matter with him, I asked that he, as I explained in my opening 
remarks, make sure that implementation had not occurred, checked 
with each one of the section chiefs, and hold in abeyance 
implementation, if you would, of that policy. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: In reading your memo, or his 
memo, which I guess in this instance you authorized, unlike the 
original one that you were implementing from him, it looks to me 
like your constraining factor is budget. It says, "Don't begin 


this work until we've compiled the department-wide key Y 
allocations. " 

DR. BECKER: I was very, very concerned about the 
budget at that time. There's no doubt about that. That was 
another issue that I was just informed about in terms of a 
problem in aligning our revenues with expenditures at that time. 
Yes, Senator. 


SENATOR AYALA: On the same thing. 

Yes, Dr. Becker, my questions are not in the area 
of qualifications or credits. I think you're fully qualified. 

DR. BECKER: Thank you. Senator. 

SENATOR AYALA: The discussion you had with the 
Chairman bothers me a little bit. 

You told me in my office that you were not 
responsible for the shredding of documents. They shouldn't have 
been destroyed. You were following orders from the Director. 

And the letter that Chairman read of June 20th, 
you were still the Deputy Director, and still supporting the 
policy of records retention policy; correct? 

DR. BECKER: No issues had surfaced at that time. 
No issues to my mind had surfaced at that time. 

What we were trying to do, as I explained. 
Senator Ayala, was to budget all of our activities for the next 
fiscal year, which would include all administrative activities. 

One other area that I would mention. Senator, 
with respect to that issue, is that my concern with respect to 
that policy had to do with my role. It was not my — under my 



jurisdiction, if you would, these administrative policies. I 
don't know how to state it more clearly than that at that time. 

SENATOR AYALA: I understand. You were not the 
general. You were the colonel. You were just implementing 
policies directed by the general or the director, whoever that 
was at that time. 

At any rate, after this memo went out on June 
20th, when did you become Director? 

DR. BECKER: September 3rd. 

SENATOR AYALA: September the 3rd. 

When did you discontinue the policy of records 
being shredded? 

DR. BECKER: I notified — on September 9th, all 
section chiefs were notified by the Chief Deputy Director to 
take no action on the policy. That's six days after -- 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Do you have a copy of that 
with you? 

DR. BECKER: I don't know if I do, but I will 
certainly ask my staff if they can locate one. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: The September 9th E-mail. 

SENATOR AYALA: Six days after you became 
Director, you issued a policy to discontinue the shredding of 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: I don't think that's accurate. 
That's what you want to claim; it's just not accurate. 

DR. BECKER: Well, let me — 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Does anyone have a copy of the 
September 9th, 1996 E-mail to section chiefs? 


DR. BECKER: It was from the Chief Deputy 
Director/ but he told them to take no action with respect to the 
policy at that time. 

I revoked -- excuse me, Senator, to complete your 
question -- on October 1st, I believe it was, I sent a note to 
all staff indicating to take no action, and then I rescinded the 
policy, yes. 

SENATOR AYALA: My understanding is that the 
practice didn't stop until the Wall Street Journal criticized 
your leadership. After that, you decided we'd better call off 
the signals; is that correct? 

DR. BECKER: I don't believe so, Senator. I 
think we made it very clear to the section chiefs, and at that 
time I asked my staff and directed my staff to ensure that no 
implementation had indeed occurred. That was in early 

SENATOR AYALA: When you were the Deputy, I have 
no problem with you implementing the problem given to you by the 
Director. But after you became Director, my understanding is 
you waited until you were criticized severely by the Wall Street 
Journal before you discontinued that policy. 

Am I correct, or am I wrong? 

DR. BECKER: I was just handed a note here that 
my staff are going forward to find the September 9th E-mail 
message at this point. 

I'm sorry. Senator, I missed your question. 

SENATOR AYALA: My question was again that it's 
incorrect to believe that you discontinued the policy strictly 


because of the criticism that the Wall Street Journal came up 
with in terms of your leadership of that department? 

DR. BECKER: The action was taken early on, on 
September 9th, to tell staff to stop, not to implement the 
policy. That was well in advance of the Wall Street Journal 


The Wall Street Journal is October 2nd. 

DR. BECKER: I'm sorry. I was referring to 
September 9th in response to Senator Ayala's question. 

On October 1st, I issued a statement to all staff 
to take no action. And October 10th, I believe, or around that 
time, there was a complete rescission of the policy. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: That's correct. October 10th 
is the rescission date. 

DR. BECKER: But I think. Senator, if you look at 
this, this is a policy. Senator and Mr. Chairman, Senators, this 
is a policy that was developed under a previous director. 

SENATOR AYALA: I understand. 

DR. BECKER: Please look at my policy. Look at 
what I have put in concrete in that policy, in that statement 
that I have made. 

And I don't think that CAPS will have any 
problem, nor any other scientist, with my policy, which states 
clearly that any material that a scientist deems complete, 
whether it's draft or not, becomes a record to be retained. 
That is my policy. 

SENATOR AYALA: I understand the reason for your 


implementing the policy when you were the Deputy Director. 
You had no choice. 

But after that, I have a question as to whether 
you acted fast enough. If you really believe that it was the 
wrong policy to pursue, that you didn't discontinue it until you 
were severely criticized by the Wall Street Journal . I have a 
problem with that, sir. 

DR. BECKER: Thank you. Senator. I think that 
the record will show that we took action soon after my 
appointment as Director. 

That I asked that my staff ascertain and 
completely be certain that no implementation had occurred and 
was assured of that, that no implementation had occurred. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Dr. Becker, it appears that 
this is revisionist. That is, now, we respond to press 
criticism and analysis also. So, I don't think it's singularly 
a basis for a fail to confirm, other than to the extent that you 
want to try to rewrite history. 

Your memo in September doesn't say don't do it. 
It says, let's figure out the PYs before we implement the 

Then there's a whole bunch of criticism, L.A. 
Times editorials. Chronicle stories, the Wall Street Journal and 
others that are very critical. And the lawsuit that's filed, 
and ten days later, you discontinue the policy. That's the 

Now maybe it takes ten days, or six months, to 
decide that this is a bad policy. I can understand that. 


But to tell us that somehow you're blameless is 

DR. BECKER: Well, I don't think I'm being, with 
due respect, Mr. Chairman, I don't think I'm being 
disingenuous . 

I think that I did act promptly in my actions. I 
think that they speak clearly. We did, and I did, rescind the 
policy of the previous director. And I ask simply that you 
judge me on the policy that was developed under my directorship, 

CHAIRMTU^ LOCKYER: What happened to the other 
director? Where 'd he go? 

MS. HAYNIE: Health Services. He went to Health 
Services, an appointment there, Jim Stratton. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Still in Health Services? 

MS. HAYNIE: He is in a position at Health 
Services now. 

SENATOR BRULTE: Will he be before us for 

MS. HAYNIE: It's not a director. I don't know 
what level it's at. 

SENATOR BRULTE: Senator, I have a question. 

Walk with me through this chronology. You were 
appointed and assumed your responsibilities on what day? 

DR. BECKER: Well, I actually assumed — I 
believe I was sworn in, assumed the responsibilities on 
September 4th, but I believe the appointment occurred late in 
the evening of September 3rd. 

SENATOR BRULTE: September 4th. Do you remember 


what day that was? 

DR. BECKER: I don't recall what day of the week 
that was. 

SENATOR BRULTE: Maybe somebody on the staff of 
the Committee could find that out. 

And on the 9th, your assistant sent a memo that 
the Chair suggests doesn't exist, but we may or may not be able 
to find it in your records? 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: I don't say it doesn't exist. 
I said it was not supplied to us when we asked for such data. A 
whistleblower has privately supplied it, and it does not. 
Senator, it does not confirm the Director's claims about the 
content and purpose of that document. That it was clearly 
budgetary, not programmatic or policy change. 

SENATOR BRULTE: It would certainly be helpful if 
every Member of the Committee could see the document. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: I agree. I don't have it. 
What I have is a two-sentence summation. 

SENATOR BRULTE: Is it the same whistleblower 
that remembers a second memo that they don't have any 
documentation for? 

MS. MICHEL: It was provided by the Department. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: They gave us a summary. You 
have it in your summary sheets. The Department gave us that, 
but they didn't give us the document. 

If you'll look at last one on Page One, you can 
read the last summation from the Department about what that 
document is. It would sound to me like it's purely budgetary 


and managerial. 

SENATOR BRULTE: You assumed the job on the 4th? 

DR. BECKER: That is correct, sir. 

SENATOR BRULTE: Which was a Wednesday? 

DR. BECKER: Yes, that is correct. 

SENATOR BRULTE: And you reversed the policy? 

DR. BECKER: The Chief Deputy Director issued 
that memo on the 9th, after briefing me of the concerns. 

SENATOR BRULTE: So, he issued it on Monday? 

DR. BECKER: I don't have a calendar in front of 
me, but I guess that's correct, sir. 

SENATOR BRULTE: So, if we can find that memo 
where it was rescinded, we would find that you were sworn in on 
a Wednesday, had basically two working days, and on the third 
full day of your appointment, you rescinded? 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Senator, not true. That's 
just not a correct statement of fact. 

SENATOR BRULTE: I'm just asking the witness -- 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: The rescission, according to 
his records, is October 10th. That's the rescission memo date. 

SENATOR BRULTE: Would you review again the 
message that your deputy sent? 

DR. BECKER: The deputy communicated to all the 
section chiefs and told them not to implement any draft plan 
for — with respect to the records management policy. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Until we have complied the 
department-wide PY allocations. It's a budget document, 
Senator. It has no comment that we can see about the 


appropriateness of the shredder policy. It's about budgeting. 

Now, it may be fine that a policy that's been 
there for several months would take a month or so to turn 
around. That may be okay. 

What's incredulous to me is to try to deny it and 
me disassociate himself with a policy of this Department. 

And then I add to that the fact that all the 
business groups, and particularly the agricultural groups, 
strongly support his confirmation, and all the environmental and 
community health groups, with rarely an exception, oppose his 
nomination. And you begin to see a pattern of politics 
affecting management decisions. 

We'll get into that latter half, I guess, with 
more testimony. But, you know, we have Federal EPA having 
dozens -- 

SENATOR BRULTE: Let me complete my questions. 

So, on your third full day in office, at your 
direction, the Deputy Director put the policy in abeyance for 
whatever reason? 

DR. BECKER: That's correct. Senator. 

SENATOR BRULTE: And then how many days after you 
assumed office did you rescind the policy that had not been 
implemented from the third day you were there? 

DR. BECKER: Within three or four weeks. Senator. 
Within that time period, I also directed my staff — 


DR. BECKER: Three or four weeks, Senator. 

Within that time period, I directed my staff to 


be sure, doubly sure, I don't recall exactly term I used but I 
think doubly sure, that no implementation had occurred. And 
that was the information that staff obtained at that time. 

On October 1st, I issued a memo to all staff, 
telling them not to implement the policy. And on or about 
October 10th, as I recall, I made a formal declaration of 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: That's correct. 

DR. BECKER: It's important to note again, I 
would just ask you look carefully at the policy that I put 
together, because I think this speaks for my commitment to the 
firm, sound, scientific method to be utilized within the Office 
of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: When you sent the memo, which 
was brisk or brusque, or both, as the Deputy Director to the 
section chiefs, what were you doing then? 

DR. BECKER: I'm sorry? 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: The memo saying, "Get with it 
and get these work plans in." 

DR. BECKER: We were behind the times in terms of 
getting our work plan in. The new fiscal year was starting. We 
needed to budget for that new fiscal year. We were behind time 
with respect to that. We needed to make sure that we had all of 
our activities, if you would, and work plan clearly laid out, 
and our priorities clearly laid out. 

This was just one of those. And typically when 
you do a budget in this regard, you have more things to do than 
people or dollars to do them. You have to figure out what's the 


give and take. That's where we needed that estimate of that 
activity, but also the estimate of the activity to do a, say, 
risk assessment for lead, or the risk assessment for diesal 
exhaust, or these other types of things. 

Then it all gets put together with the section 
chiefs, and the higher ups figure out what it is we are going to 
proceed upon in terms of priorities. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: And you knew under 
pre-existing departmental policy that part of the budget or time 
allocated would be to document review and winnowing. 

DR. BECKER: That was part -- that was a policy, 
just like prevention of sexual harassment was a policy, or other 
types of things were administrative policies. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: So, you just inherited that, 
in effect, as policy while you were a deputy? 

DR. BECKER: That was a policy that was developed 
when I was a deputy, yes. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Do you remember participating 
in discussions of that policy? 

DR. BECKER: Very, very little. Senator. My only 
discussion that I can recall dealt with making sure that within 
each section in the implementation phase of that policy, that 
there be senior scientist in charge of any review of any 
scientific document. I was particularly concerned that I didn't 
want a file clerk reviewing a scientific document and making any 
kind of action or decision. 

The other thing I wanted to be sure of was that 
there was -- this, again, was brief a conservation that I 


recall -- that there was adequate opportunity for discussion 
with the senior scientists or any scientists with legal counsel 
before any action occurred. That was within my realm and my 
responsibilities as Deputy Director. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: You mean to recommend that 
they discuss it with a lawyer? 

DR. BECKER: Yes, that's correct, and to 
recommend that the attorney discuss that with staff. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Was counsel internal, or was 
it Attorney General, or how were you represented? 

DR. BECKER: I believe at that time counsel was 
internal . 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Prior to the April directive 
on documents, your recollection is just some minimal discussion 
of that policy? 

DR. BECKER: Yes, that's correct. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Do you think it got decided or 
debated by others, or did it just sort of come down? 

DR. BECKER: The administrative policies like 
that were not within my bailiwick. Senator. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: But as a deputy, you didn't 
participate in discussions? 

DR. BECKER: As I said, only very briefly, and 
only on those two issues which were in, I believe, my purview as 
Deputy Director of Scientific Affairs. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: You mean after the policy was 
announced or prior? 

DR. BECKER: I believe there was one discussion 


prior, but that was at a section chiefs meeting with all of our 
section chiefs, not just me, but the chiefs of each and every 
one of our sections. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: That was the one time prior? 

DR. BECKER: I believe so, yes. That's my 
recollection, sir. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Somewhere we left you back at 
the dock. Are you ready to sail? 

MS. HAYNIE: Whenever you're ready. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Can you pick up where ever it 


MS. HAYNIE: Well, I can eliminate some things. 
CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: If you can eliminate, that's 


MS. HAYNIE: I think one thing on the records 
retention, before I move on some other important facts, is that 
the concept of the records retention policy is not a budget 
issue. It's science issue; it's a public safety issue. It's 
also a constitutional issue. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: I understand that. Except 
that it being discussed as a budgetary matter. 

MS. HAYNIE: I know. I just wanted to expand the 
thought . 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: And we understand you may have 
a different view, and frankly, it sounds like Dr. Becker, 
perhaps, has a different view, that that's an inappropriate 
policy for the reasons that you've mentioned. 

SENATOR BRULTE: Would you expand on what you 


mean by it's a constitutional issue? 

MS. HAYNIE: Well, because what the records 
retention policy would have done if it had been fully 
implemented is, anything that was not part of a final report, 
that was not part of the deliberative decision making in the 
final outcome, could have been destroyed. 

SENATOR BRULTE: Kind of like the way we do 
things here in the Legislature. Anything that's not part of the 
official record doesn't go into the official record? 

MS. HAYNIE: Exactly. And so then, with 
scientific review, you may look at three different hypotheses 
and determine that one of them is the best route to take. Five 
years from now, when you're looking at the same question or a 
similar question, you may want to go and see why didn't 
hypothesis two and three make sense at that time. Maybe there's 
new information that the scientists have available at that time 
that gives them more perspective. 

That would have been lost. It's sort of like, 
what I liken it to is, at one point, scientists thought the 
world was flat. It's the same exact concept. It's a continual 
learning process, and that would have been lost, that 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Just only because the 
analogy's been drawn, I must point out that when our records are 
transferred to archives, everything in them is transferred. 

Now, an individual Member may cull out something 
that they don't want to send, but that's not the policy, 


DR. BECKER: May I respond? 

My policy would be very similar to what you just 
described, Senator, is that any record that a scientist deems 
completed, would be a record to be retained. That's the policy 
that I developed. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: I notice you used the word 
completed. I guess that may be part of the debate here. 

DR. BECKER: Completed as even a draft. It says 
even a draft. 

MS. HAYNIE: Well, at the time, Dr. Becker was 
the Deputy Director of Scientific Affairs, who these people 
reported to, and the message was clear to them that they were 
supposed to be implementing the records retention policy. And 
there was constant reminders in meetings beyond just the June, 
'96 memo that you have. 

Also, too, CAPS and two of our directors — 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: I'm sorry, you said something 
about records other than the June -- 

MS. HAYNIE: Other than the June, '96 memo that 

you have 


CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: What would be in those 

MS, HAYNIE: No, there is also discussion about 
incidences when Dr. Becker reminded the senior toxicologists 
about implementing the records retention policy at the staff 
meetings for those individuals. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Again, he's still the Deputy 
Director at this time? 


MS. HAYNIE: Exactly. 

SENATOR BRULTE: Are you a senior toxicologist? 

MS. HAYNIE: No, I'm not, but I am here to talk 
on behalf of our members. 

SENATOR BRULTE: Were you in any of those 
meetings where you heard Mr. Becker -- 

MS. HAYNIE: No, I was not, and I don't claim to 

Also, when CAPS did meet with Dr. Becker and some 
of his people prior to this hearing, and we did discuss briefly 
about the records retention policy, and like you, yourself. 
Senator, we asked why the delay in withdrawing the policy from 
the time of his appointment. 

The response that we received was a little 
confusing to us, because he said that they weren't sure what the 
issues were. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: When was this? 

MS. HAYNIE: The meeting was held in April, when 
we met with Dr. Becker. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: But not subsequent to the 
September appointment as Director? 

MS. HAYNIE: No, in April of 1997, this year, as 
a result of his appointment. 

And we asked Dr. Becker why the delay in 
withdrawing the records retention policy last year. 

CAPS took the position in March, 1997. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: It only took about a month. 
That's the delay you were asking about? 


MS. HAYNIE: Yes, that's what we were asking 

And when we were told -- 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: And the answer was? 

MS. HAYNIE: The answer was that they were 
confused about the concerns about the policy, which was 
confusing to us because I had sent a letter in June of '96, 
outlining the concerns of CAPS that are similar to those of 
NRDC . So, I feel that they had advance notice of organizations 

Moving on -- 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Any other issues? 

MS. HAYNIE: Yes, there are some other issues. 

Continuing with our meeting with Dr. Becker and 
his staff, many times we've heard Dr. Becker use the term that 
he wants to promote good science and get the science right. 

To begin with, from the scientists' point of 
view, that's a very odd statement, because it implies that the 
science was wrong before. And as I was just describing to 
Senator Brulte about why the history is important, scientific 
history is built on as we obtain new technologies or learn new 
things about applicable science. Then there's going to be a 
different evaluation, and we're going to learn something new 
about what we're studying. 

Environmental science is the same type of 
situation as any other scientific field. And it's a very odd 
statement to make. 

SENATOR BRULTE: When was this meeting, this 


meeting you're referring to? 

MS. HAYNIE: With Dr. Becker? I believe it was 
in April of 1991, while he was Director, this year. 


MS. HAYNIE: We're totally into it now. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: This year it was asking about 
why was it slow a year ago, or nine months ago. 

Of course, some of us think for a bureaucracy to 
change directions about anything in a month is pretty good. 


CfiAIRMAN LOCKYER: But this is now a different 

MS. HAYNIE: Right. 

SENATOR BRULTE: Let me follow. 

Do you really believe, I mean, obviously you do, 
but if somebody says we've got a job today, let's go out and 
make sure we do it right, do you think everybody in the world 
draws the conclusion that the operation does things wrong just 
by the fact that you have to say that? 

I mean, I don't understand how you can draw the 
conclusion that when Mr. Becker says we've got to get the 
science right, that somehow implies that everything that's come 
before it has been wrong. I don't draw that conclusion. I 
wouldn't draw that conclusion from a statement like that. 

MS. HAYNIE: I think primarily the term that's 
very popular right now is good science, and he has expanded upon 
that term using good science in many of his discussions. 

And most people don't have a significant 


background in science, and I think to them, it's just good or 
bad. They don't pull the whole thing together. That's the 
concern. I was just trying to make that just for clarification. 

CHAIR>4AN LOCKYER: Well, Dr. Becker made the 
comment in his opening statement that he wishes it be based on 
sound science. I think, frankly, that's probably universally 

Lay people often have problems understanding why 
two scientists can have different opinions about a matter, or 
ten or whatever. T^d they understand with lawyers, why you have 
three lawyers and five opinions, but they don't understand that 
often with the scientists. It's, I guess, somewhat analogous. 

SENATOR BRULTE: I don't know that scientists get 
paid based upon the number of opinions they have. 

MS. HAYNIE: I'm sure they don't. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: I think there are some who do. 
They're called consultants. 

MS. HAYNIE: I'm going to be discussing a few of 
the specific projects that have been worked on during 
Dr. Becker's tenure as the Director, and then Jennifer will also 
testify on a couple things she can personally discuss. 

First of all, there was a study on two — a study 
for indoor air quality for schools throughout the State of 
California. This actually had begun to be planned in January of 

There were inter-agency agreements with the Air 
Resources Board and also with the Lawrence Livermore 
Laboratories, and cooperative efforts with the Energy 


Coimnission, Health Services/ Department of Education, U.S. EPA, 
and school administrators. The reason -- 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Is this all the same topic? 

MS. HAYNIE: All the same topic. It was a 
coordinated effort. The scientists spent many hours 
coordinating and developing that relationship to evaluate indoor 
air quality in schools statewide. 

This project was supposed to start in October of 
1996. Shortly before the implementation date, Dr. Becker 
decided to cut the project. One way that this was implemented 
was by cutting the funding and transferring the funding 
elsewhere. But the project was cut prior to the funding 
transfer . 

There was objections based on -- or, proposed 
objections that the relationship with the Air Resources Board 
was not comfortable for him. And also, the other reason for 
cutting the program was because, if there was a result that 
proved that the State of California needed to handle or spend 
money to resolve indoor air quality issues in the schools, that 
then the State of California would not be able to provide that 
funding to make those corrections. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: These were the explanations 
given, as you recall? 

MS. HAYNIE: As I have been told from the 
scientists . 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: For the change in project 

MS. HAYNIE: Right, from the withdrawal of the 


project . 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: It just went away entirely? 

MS. HAYNIE: Yes, it was not pursued. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: It's technical enough. Maybe 
we ought to stop and ask you for a comment, if you'd wish to. 

DR. BECKER: That's not the way I recall it. Of 
course, we did have a budget problem, and there was a need to 
transfer funding. Of course, one of those issues in transfer of 
funding, when you have outside contracts, and you also have 
employees is, which do you support? Your state civil service 
employees or your outside contractors. 

I think I made the right decision. We decided to 
cut the contracts and support our state civil service CAPS 
employees . 

So, I am a little incredulous to be criticized 
for that move at this point. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: This indoor pollution 
discussion, or air quality, was an outside, out-house rather 
than in-house? 

MS. HAYNIE: There was a coordinated effort that 
was supposed to occur. And there was work with Lawrence 
Livermore Labs, the ARB, and several other agencies, as I've 
been told. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: But did you understand at the 
time, or anyone present, that this was to help maintain the 
slots for in-house expertise? 


SENATOR BRULTE: Let me just me follow up. 



Once again/ I want to be real clear on this. You 
weren't in any of those meetings? 

MS. HAYNIE: No, I was not. I'm not a scientist 
for the state. This is second-hand. 

SENATOR BRULTE: You represent people who have 
told you something that may or may not be correct. I can't 
testify to it that you know for a fact? 

MS. HAYNIE: That's true. I can only express 
what I have been told. 

SENATOR BRULTE: And you have Air Resources 
Board, Lawrence Livermore Labs, and a whole host other 

Was this agency funding the entire project? 

MS. HAYNIE: I'm not totally clear on the answer 
to that question. 

SENATOR BRULTE: Could that project go on without 
funding from this agency? 

DR. BECKER: I'm sorry, I missed that question. 

SENATOR BRULTE: Were you funding this entire 

DR. BECKER: I don't have that information in 
front of me, sir. But as I do recall, one of my questions to 
staff was, had they worked with the State Department of 
Education in terms of the survey, and the answer was no. And I 
asked that they please go do that, because the State Department 
of Education and also -- I can't recall what the other 
department who is responsible for school construction and 
maintenance needed to be involved in such a type of survey. And 


I thought that was important, to work with them as partners as 
wel 1 . 

That was part of my direction at that point. 

SENATOR BRULTE: So, that project is not ongoing? 

DR. BECKER: We do still have an indoor air 
project, yes, sir. I can't tell you if we have a survey that's 
being planned at the present time because of funding issues. 
But it may well transpire that we do. I just don't have that 
information in front of me. 

SENATOR BRULTE: I'm confused. 

Did you spike the program, or did you not spike 
the program? It either isn't going on or it is. The witness 
says from what she's heard, it isn't. 

DR. BECKER: We have an indoor air group program, 
an indoor air group within the Air Toxics Program that continues 
to look at indoor air problems. One of the areas, of course, 
would be schools. 

With respect to the survey, I believe that there 
is no funds to support the outside contractors to conduct such a 
study, and that those funds were redirected, if you would. And 
It's my understanding -- I can double-check -- to support state 
civil service CAPS employees. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Could I ask you on that? 

DR. BECKER: Yes. Mr. Senator, I'm sorry. 

I have just been notified that we have two 
witnesses who would like to testify on my behalf who need to 
leave at 4:00 P.M. 

CHAIRM7VN LOCKYER: They're not going to get here 


until we're done with these people. 

DR. BECKER: Thank you. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Or they can come back another 
day when it's convenient for them. 

You mentioned surveying that was discontinued. I 
think that's what you said with respect to indoor air qualify. 
Is that right, Dr. Becker. 

DR. BECKER: Again, I would recall — as I 
recall/ there was a contract with one of the Lawrence 
Laboratories to conduct a survey. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: That's what was eliminated? 

DR. BECKER: Correct, not our indoor air program 
by state civil service employees. That program exists and 
continues today. 

MS. HAYNIE: But the cooperative effort of the 
statewide survey for schools, which was supposed to be in this 
school year, was when it was supposed to be conducted, that was 
stopped in September of last year. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: That's this Lawrence Lab 

MS. HAYNIE: Along with other — right, it was a 
cooperative effort, and that survey, specific survey, was cut. 

SENATOR BRULTE: Let me just ask a question, and 
this calls for you to draw a conclusion. 

Would you think it makes sense to loop the State 
Department of Education and do a survey like that, if we were, 
in fact, going to do it? 

MS. HAYNIE: Yes. And I was told that there was 


contacts with the Department of Education, so I don't understand 
the comments by Dr. Becker. 

I agree with you. 

SENATOR BRULTE: Were you a part of the working 

MS. HAYNIE: No, all I can do is express to you 
what I have been told. 

Let me get through one -- more thing, and then 
let's turn it over to Jennifer, who can give you more specific 
direct testimony. 

The other thing I'd like to briefly describe is 
an anglers' survey that was to be conducted in the San Francisco 
Bay area, fishermen. 

CHAIRM7VN LOCKYER: What kind of survey? 

MS. HAYNIE: Angler. And it was to also 
determine the consumption of fish that was caught during, you 
know, fishing. 

And the thing that's important here is, the 
survey was conducted, but there is a critical question which the 
staff did obtain authorization to use. The question was to ask 

Bill Soo Hoo, who is the chief counsel at OEHHA, 
did authorize their use of that question. And the survey was 
supposed to begin -- this is back when he was Deputy Director — 
on June 2 3rd of 1996. Dr. Becker had demanded that the 
ethnicity question be taken off of the questionnaire. The 
survey was to begin the next morning at 9:00 o'clock A.M. 

The results of the survey were therefore changed 



because that information was not provided. A lot of the 
minority groups do fish in the San Francisco Bay to obtain their 

And when the report was sent for peer review, the 
comments that came out were, it seems like, you know, the 
ethnicity should have been discovered so it would be a more 
meaningful report. 

When the peer review comments were sent to 
management, that comment was stricken from the peer review 
report. So, this is a concern. 

SENATOR HUGHES: I just have to ask you if that 
is true and why? 

I don't know what it would have to do with the 
results of the entire report. 

DR. BECKER: I have no recollection of that 
whatsoever, other than making sure that such a question was 
reviewed and approved by staff counsel because of the concern 
about a state agency conducting a survey requesting information 
regarding ethnicity. That's my only recollection. I do not 
recall -- 

SENATOR HUGHES: Would you repeat that again? 
Your recollection was what? 

DR. BECKER: My recollection was making sure that 
the question related to ethnicity was reviewed by staff counsel 
because of concern about any state agency asking any question 
related to a person's ethnicity. I wanted to make sure that we 
were above board on that, and that's why the referral was to 
staff counsel. 


I don't recall at all the statement or the 
allegation that was made here that I directed that that question 
be removed. I don't recall that. 

SENATOR HUGHES: So, when the question was 
referred to staff counsel, what did staff counsel advise? 

DR. BECKER: I don't have that information in 
front of me. I'd be glad to get it for you. 

SENATOR HUGHES: I would be interested in finding 
out what the advice of the staff counsel was. 

DR. BECKER: It may simply have to do with how it 
was worded, you know, but I wanted to make sure that staff 
counsel, because of the sensitivity that people experience when 
dealing with questions of ethnicity, that we were -- especially 
by a state agency -- we were clear and within our purview, if 
you would. 

I'll be glad to find out. 

SENATOR BRULTE: By clear, you mean you want to 
make sure you didn't violate the Governor's Executive Order 
concerning that. 

DR. BECKER: That's correct, and any other 
existing laws, rules, regulations. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: When did the Executive Order 
come down; do you recall? Senator, do you recall when the 
Executive Order was issued? 

SENATOR BRULTE: Probably before the '94 
election. That would just be my guess. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: I think it was before the '96 



SENATOR BRULTE: It could be. 

DR. BECKER: But Senator Hughes, in response to 
that/ I will get back to you on that. 


CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: I think it was either late '95 
or early '96. It may go to a modest piece of evidence that 
you're unduly sensitive to the Governor's philosophy. I think 
that's the -- 

MS. HAYNIE: However, though, I've had several 
scientists inform me that they were directed to take that 
question out and it totally changed -- 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: I understand, but he has no 
recollection of doing that, and the management document, that 
didn't include peer criticism of the omission, seems to not be 
before us, either. If anyone could ever show us that, maybe it 
would be useful, but I think Dr. Becker doesn't recall seeing or 
editing such a document either. 

DR. BECKER: That's correct. Senator. 

MS. HAYNIE: Before I turn it over to Ms. Mann, 
I'd like to make a point also about the reason why I'm here 
testifying instead of the scientists, which is, the environment 
of OEHHA has become very autocratic. The scientists have been 
told what their decisions should look like, and they have been 
told if they do the study in their normal way, how to change 
their conclusions. 

So, as a result, there's such a high level of 
fear of coming out and speaking on their own behalf. 

The reason why Jennifer Mann is here to talk to 


you today is because she left the Department in April of this 
year. So, she is not in the same situation of having her 
economic stability being threatened. 

They're very afraid of reprisal, and I think 
rightly so in a situation like this, where it's very polarized. 

MS. ^4ANN: My name is Jennifer Mann, and as 
Kristen Haynie said, I am a former employee of OEHHA. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: What did you do use to do 

MS. MANN: I worked as an epidemiologist in the 
Air Toxicology and Epidemiology Section for seven-and-a-half 

I'm going to try and address some of the 
questions that came up. In addition, I have some remarks that 
raise some new issues possibly. I'm going -- my remarks are 
really restricted to those projects that I had a role in while I 
was there. 

While at OEHHA, there was also a lot of 
discussion, so I know some of the same people that may have been 
involved in some of the earlier projects that Kristen was 
talking about. I might be able to shed some light, hopefully. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Tell us mostly what you know 
from your own personal experience. 

MS. MANN: Right. 

I have a master's in public health and in 
epidemiology. For last three years, I've been studying for my 
doctorate at UC Berkeley. 

While I was at OEHHA, I had the privilege of 



working with a very distinguished group of staff scientists at 
the Air Toxicology and Epidemiology Section of OEHHA. The staff 
there includes epidemiologists, toxicologists, public health 
physicians, and most of these staff possess doctorate or medical 
degrees. Therefore, they have qualifications that are similar, 
if not even stronger, than Dr. Becker's. 

The toxicology staff has been in the forefront of 
developing improved methods for risk assessment, some of which 
are now used or in the process of being adopted by U.S. EPA. 

The toxicology staff was -- had an excellent 
reputation even before Dr. Becker's arrival. Sometimes he likes 
to take credit for their expertise. 

The epidemiology staff includes -- 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Are they up here, or Berkeley, 
or where are they located? 

MS. MANN: Both in Berkeley and Sacramento. I was 
located in Berkeley. 

The epidemiology staff includes experts in the 
field of air pollution and environmental epidemiology. And the 
staff is dedicated to scientific excellence, but also has a very 
strong commitment to public health. 

OEHHA' 5 mission as part of Cal-EPA, and 
previously as part of DHS, the Department of Health Services, 
has been to evaluate potential public health and environmental 
hazards using the tools of science. This mission was carried 
out with little political interference until the appointment of 
Dr. Becker as Deputy Director of Scientific Affairs by Dr. Jim 


The entire atmosphere of OEHHA then changed. 
Dr. Becker had a political agenda, it was my impression, which 
was stop or slow the bad news which was coming out of OEHHA, and 
examples of this bad news are a report that air-borne lead found 
in some places in California can cause lead poisoning in 
children -- I'm going to talk about that report today -- and 
preliminary data showing that Lompoc may have elevated rates of 
respiratory disease, and I'll talk a little bit about that as 
well . 

I can give you several other examples, but we 
don't have all day. 


MS. MANN: I may mention them. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: We need to make an informed 
judgment . 

MS. MANN: Dr. Becker has attempted to distance 
himself from some of the changes that were made to documents or 
studies during time that was he was Deputy of Scientific 
Affairs. But Dr. Stratton, who was the Director of the 
Department at the time that Dr. Becker was Deputy Director, his 
leadership was weak to nonexistent. And Dr. Becker more or less 
ran the Department while he was Deputy Director of Scientific 

I have to say that it's infuriating to hear Dr. 
Becker distance himself from implementation of the original 
records retention policy. He did appoint senior staff to 
arrange a plan to implement the policy. We were continuously 
told at section meetings that we should be getting ready to 


implement the policy. 

And it also came at a time when conclusions of 
documents were being either watered down and changed. So, there 
was a lot of suspicion about the intent of the policy, which 
was, he said, to protect pre-decisional deliberation, but in our 
mind looked like it was destroying the quote-unquote, 
"evidence". It was actually instructing us to shred documents 
that were our position, and then all that would be left was the 
watered down or changed document. 

Under Dr. Becker's leadership as Deputy Director 
of Scientific Affairs, and later as Director, risk assessment 
documents have been endlessly delayed and our conclusions 
watered down. Epidemiologic studies were cancelled, and 
finally, data and scientific arguments not reflecting the 
decisions of upper management were to be destroyed. And there 
I'm talking about the records retention policy. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: So, you're certain some things 
were destroyed? 

MS. MANN: Were to be destroyed, was my wording. 
There was a staff member -- 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: He mentioned one, but that 
there was a subsequent re-review, and that it appeared to not 
involve anything that was important to maintain. 

MS. MANN: My wording was, were to be destroyed, 
because the scientists that I worked with had no intention of 
destroying any of that, document policy or not. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Civil disobedience. 

SENATOR BRULTE: I'd like to follow-up on that. 


CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Had you completed that point? 

SENATOR BRULTE: I'd like to go back to the one 
prior to the one you ]ust started. 

You're critical of Mr. Becker for implementing a 
policy that was written, generated, approved of by one of his 
superiors . 

Is it your position that in the hierarchical 
model of this bureaucracy, people who follow policy are 
somehow -- 

MS. MANN: No. I'm actually being specific to 
this policy, and also the role that Dr. Becker had as Deputy 
Director in OEHHA at that time. 

I would not make general statements about policy, 


SENATOR BRULTE: Clearly, you don't like the 


MS. MANN: The records retention policy, no. 

SENATOR BRULTE: You know, I'm not a scientist. 
It's a given, I guess, not too many people liked the policy, 
based on what I've seen, and Mr. Becker himself reversed it. 

MS. MANN: Right, and there was also concern 
because of the general atmosphere in OEHHA at that time under 
Dr. Becker as Deputy Director. 

SENATOR BRULTE: At the time the policy came 
down, did you believe it to be an illegal policy? 

MS. MANN: I was not sure if it was an illegal 
policy, but there were discussions as to whether or not it was 
legal . 


SENATOR BRULTE: By the lawyers in the 

MS. HAYNIE: There was a debate even amongst the 
scientists who were asked to implement it. I believe that's 
when they first contacted me about it. 

SENATOR BRULTE: So, with the exception of this 
policy, you believe generally it's a good idea for people who 
work within a hierarchy to implement the policies as directed by 
their superiors within the hierarchy? 

MS. MANN: I don't have a problem with people 
implementing policies that they're instructed to implement by 
someone higher up in the hierarchy, no. 

I did have a problem with Dr. Becker trying to 
distance himself, and distance himself from the original records 
retention policy, because I think in that particular setting, 
it's not as he painted it. 

I don't know personally what he said and what his 
role was prior to the policy, but once it was instituted, the 
original policy, he was the person who was very directly in 
contact with us, requesting us to implement the policy, or to 
get ready to implement the policy. 

SENATOR BRULTE: Was he directly in contact with 
you doing anything else? 

MS. MANN: Yes. I was — I worked with 
Dr. Becker on a risk assessment of lead, which I'll talk about 
in a minute. 

SENATOR BRULTE: So, he would be the one that 
would normally be interacting with you? 


MS. M?U\IN : No. Normally, what do you mean? 

SENATOR BRULTE: I asked you the question, is 
this the only thing he interacted with you on, and you said no, 
you interacted with him on risk assessment. 

MS. MANN: Let me make something clear. 

There is a hierarchy in OEHHA. I have -- I had a 
unit chief. Above that person was a section chief, and above 
that person is OEHHA management. 

So, the orders were given to the section chiefs. 
The section chiefs would then disseminate the orders to their 
staff at section meetings. 

So, my contact with Dr. Becker on records 
retention was through that process. 

SENATOR BRULTE: That was within the normal scope 
of his duties. 

And your criticism is that you think he may have 
enjoyed implementing it when he was the Deputy Director. 

MS. MAJ^N: Right. 

SENATOR BRULTE: And that he may want to say, I 
really didn't enjoy doing it. I was just doing it because I 
felt like it was my job to follow the rules? 

MS. MAJJN: Right. 

SENATOR BRULTE: And you're happy that, three 
full days afterwards, or a month afterwards, or whatever, the 
record ultimately shows he reversed that policy? 

MS. MANN: Yes. 

SENATOR BRULTE: Did you ever tell him that. 

MS. MANN: Did I ever tell him that I was happy 


he reversed the policy? 


MS. MANN: I'm not sure that I told him that 
specifically. We did have discussions with management after the 
policy was rescinded about what our feelings had been about it. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Did you compliment him for 
reading The Wall Street Journal , L.A. Times , and other critical 
documents prior to the new policy reversal? 

MS. MANN: No, I did not. 

In my last few months at OEHHA, I worked on a 
revival of a project that Dr. Becker had previously cancelled, 
which was a descriptive analysis of hospital discharge data from 
the community of Lompoc, California, to determine if there were 
elevated rates of respiratory disease in that community. 

The first time this analysis was attempted, it 
was part of a larger report of health problems in Lompoc, and it 
was cancelled. The analysis was cancelled by Dr. Becker without 

I want to be clear that I didn't work on the 
first phase of this project. I worked on the second phase, 
which I'm going to talk about. 

But in that first phase, the scientists were 
ordered to stop working on the analysis and were not allowed to 
discuss it an among themselves or with the community of 
Lompoc. The conclusions of the remainder of the report were 
changed by the Director's office to indicate that there was no 
public health problem in that community. This change was made 
over the vehement protests of staff scientists, who subsequently 


refused to have their names associated with the document. 

After meetings with State Senator Jack O'Connell, 
management finally allowed this analysis of the hospital 
discharge data to continue on the condition that we write a 
protocol outlining our methods. 

This was the criticism that Dr. Becker had 
leveled against the previous analysis, that there was no 
protocol/ and that that was -- scientific process involved 
writing a protocol and having it peer reviewed. 

The methods that we proposed using could be found 
in any basic epidemiology or bio statistics textbook. So, the 
protocol was written within a week of when they requested us to 
write it. 

Yet, after we had finished writing the protocol, 
management wouldn't accept it until we had written up a work 
plan, outlining how we would write the protocol. But remember, 
the protocol was already written. 

Then, after management approval of the work plan, 
management sent the draft protocol to 10 epidemiologists outside 
of OEHHA for external review. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: That's normal; isn't it? 

MS. MT^N: No. 

Finally, the protocol was to be reviewed — 

SENATOR BRULTE: Should it be? 

MS. MANN: No. For this level of — for what we 
were talking about, which was a preliminary analysis using very 
basic methods, not a study, it is not — it is not normal 


And if you're using new methods, if you're doing 
very extensive studies, something like that would be very 
appropriate, in my mind. But in this case, no. I thought it 
was -- I think everybody working on the project thought it was 

Even some of the reviewers commented that the 
methods that were being used were very basic. 

SENATOR BRULTE: So, the peer review process — 

MS. MANN: Happened. 

SENATOR BRULTE: Was that methodology or method 
what is -- 

MS. MANN: I think that was the purpose, yes. 
And I just want to say that requesting approval for this 
analysis makes about as much sense as requesting approval of a 
protocol for tying your shoes. These were very basic methods. 

The approval process for doing this simple 
preliminary analysis began in December of 1996 and was still 
going on at the end of April, 1997, when I left my position at 

The analysis itself would have taken less than 
six weeks. Actually, the bulk of the analysis had all ready 
been completed when Dr. .Becker cancelled -- cancelled the 
previous version of it. And at the outset of this whole 
process, we were cautioned not to plan too extensive an 
analysis, because it was imperative that things not take too 

This type of internal and external review is 
appropriate for studies that are using new methods, but not for 


descriptive analysis using the standard procedures that we 

The next thing that I want to talk a little bit 
about is my work on risk assessment of inorganic lead in air. I 
have substantial experience with studying the health effects of 
inorganic lead. For two years, I worked on a legislatively 
mandated statewide study which determined the prevalence of lead 
poisoned children in those communities deemed to be at highest 

I've spent ten years studying inorganic lead. 
But for the first two years, I worked on a project for the 
Department of Health Services, which was a legislatively 
mandated statewide study, which determined the prevalence of 
lead poison in children in high risk communities in California. 
And those communities that were considered to be at high risk 
were those with young children and a lot of old housing. 

I'm also -- I've also worked on the risk 
assessment that I just referred to, which was an evaluation of 
-the health effects of inorganic lead in air, and that's a 
project I spent seven years on, in large part because of 
Dr. Becker's delay tactics. 

CHAIRMT^ LOCKYER: You mean seven years was — 

MS. MANN: Well, the last two years. And I want 
to give a few examples of how Dr. Becker delayed release of that 
risk assessment for almost two years. 

We began working on the risk assessment in 
January of 1992. I actually started working on it the fall 
before that. I guess it's more like six years. 


In January of 1994, all but one part of the 
document was approved by our scientific review panel. And the 
part that wasn't approved was our reference exposure level, 
which the panel thought was not sufficiently health protective. 

A reference exposure level, or REL, is the level 
below which even sensitive populations are protected. And it's 
supplied as guidance -- 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Even what kind of populations? 

MS. MANN: Sensitive. 

After the scientific review panel met with us at 
the January, 1994 meeting, they expected to see the document 
within three to six months. 

The requested changes were made to the document, 
and the risk assessment was on the brink of completion when Dr. 
Becker arrived at OEHHA, about' one year later, in February, 
1995. And that was when he became Deputy Director. 


Describe what's the sensitive population in this 
lead study? 

MS. MANN: When we want to evaluate what the 
health effects are of a chemical, we need to consider not 
only -- not only the general population of California, but any 
sensitive -- people that might be more sensitive than the 
general population. In the case of lead, it's young children. 
So, because young children are more likely to — 

SENATOR HUGHES: Inorganic lead, is that from 

MS. MANN: It's got lots of sources, but yes, 


lead in paint would be one. We were actually looking at lead in 

SENATOR HUGHES: Lead in air, but you were 
looking at lead in air and paint too? No, just in air? 

MS. MANN: We were evaluating the health effects 
of lead from air, and to look at that, we also had to look at 
lead from other sources as well. 


CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Are we in the Lompoc study? 

MS. MANN: No. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: This is not Lompoc. That 
wasn't a lead issue? 

MS. MANN: No. The Lompoc concern was that there 
were elevated rates of respiratory disease. 

I want to give some examples of how Dr. Becker 
delayed the release of the document, and what happened to it in 
the almost two years, from the time he was Deputy Director to 
when it was eventually passed on October 31st of last year. 

The first thing was that while Dr. Becker was 
Deputy Director, we were told to remove the reference exposure 
level from the document. Since it was removed, those who 
protect Californians have no guidance as to what safe levels of 
lead in air would be. And I said above, the scientific review 
panel had instructed the staff of OEHHA to strengthen the 
reference exposure level, not delete it. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: What do you mean by 

MS. MANN: They felt like our original — they 


told us that our original reference exposure level was not 
health protective enough. They felt that the numbers should be 
lower, which means it should be more health protective. We 
should allow only lower concentrations of lead in air. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Who's the "they" in this 

MS. MANN: Scientific review panel works with the 
Air Resources Board. 

When we do risk assessments, the are evaluated 
value by the scientific review panel. OEHHA does the health 
effects portion of the risk assessments for toxic air 
contaminants . 

Another thing that happened was, we were 
instructed to take out all references to health effects at the 
current air lead standard. And our documents showed that if 
average air concentrations were this high in lead, half of all 
children would be lead poisoned. While current ambient levels 
are much lower than the standard, there's no legal restriction 
on lead emitting industries to produce emissions that result in 
air lead levels at the standard. 

Another thing that happened was, we were told to 
refer to elevated exposures of lead in air which were actually 
experienced in California as hypothetical, presumably in order 
to appease the lead industry. 

Finally, Dr. Becker filled the document with 
qualifiers, caveats, and uncertainties that were well beyond 
what an objective interpretation of the literature would 
indicate. There are thousands of articles on the health effects 


of lead from the fields of epidemiology, toxicology, cell and 
molecular biology, and clinical medicine. And I think this 
statement is correct, that no pollutant has ever been more 
extensively studied. 

In many cases, he asked us to add analyses to the 
document, which it is my impression that he thought would prove 
that lead in air did not affect the health of Californians . 
When these analyses showed the opposite, we were asked to remove 

For example, he asked us to determine percent of 
a child's blood lead due to air lead across a wide range of air 
lead concentrations. That's a very reasonable thing to ask. 

But we found that in an air lead concentration 
that was just below the standard, that 50 percent of the child's 
blood lead was due to lead in air. And when Dr. Becker was 
given the results of that analysis, he told us to remove it from 
the document . 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: What did you do? 

MS. MANN: We removed it. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: You have to do that. 

MS. MANN: Right. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Was there a reason based on 

MS. MANN: Not that we were given. 

DR. BECKER: The air lead levels. Senator, in 
California have dropped some 30 to 50 fold over last 20 years. 
Ambient air lead levels now are very, very low because lead has 
been removed from gasoline. 


The lead air standard -- exposure at the lead air 
standard, to my knowledge, not widespread at all. So, from that 
perspective, it provided very little information. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: What do you mean 

DR. BECKER: Information. 

What we did add to that, and what's important to 
note, is that we added a model to this document which took some 
time to do. And model was to look at lead from all sources of 
exposure -- lead from paints; lead from soil; lead from air; 
lead from food; lead from other sources -- and integrate those 
because that's where the major exposures are occurring in 
children right now. 

In the mid-1970s. Senator, about 90 percent of 
the children, ages one to five, had blood lead levels above the 
level of concern. Right now, that level has dropped to about 10 
percent, largely because lead has been removed in air. But 10 
percent of our children is still too many. 

Now, where is this lead coming from? We think 
it's coming from several sources. We think it's coming from, 
perhaps, substandard housing and lead-based paint chipping off, 
that type of thing. Lead-based paint was banned in 1978, but 
virtually every structure almost constructed before then has 
lead paint in it. 

From lead in soil, which has accumulated over the 
years from deposition, either from industry or from 
automobile-type of traffic. From lead in food, and from lead in 
other types of medicinal sources as well. 


It can also occur, and we stated this clearly, 
from ambient sources of lead from lead industries. But to get 
at the real problem, which is to focus at the community level 
where the lead problem is now -- it's not wide spread throughout 
California -- you need to integrate exposures across all the 
pathways . 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: I understand you might want to 
have a complete understanding of the sources of lead in a 
child's blood. 

But if this study concluded -- maybe what you're 
saying is, they hadn't studied all potential sources and 
therefore couldn't conclude 50 percent is air borne? 

DR. BECKER: There was a new model that had been 
developed. When I received the assignment, and my recollection 
is receiving that assignment somewhere around May of '95 from 
the Director to look at this lead document, I noticed that it 
was not comprehensive. It was not multi-media in nature; did 
not account for lead exposures and used this new model, which 
the U.S. EPA had developed, and which was being utilized at 
Superfund sites and other sites in other communities across the 
nation, which I felt was important to develop and include in our 
document . 

So, I directed that that be inclusive. That 
model is really a tool, a tool that we can help communities 
affected by lead exposures identify where the major sources are, 
so that they can take the most appropriate and effective action 
to protect public health and environment. In some communities, 
it may be lead in air; in other communities, it may be lead in 


soil; in other communities, it may be lead in paint. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: But they had concluded somehow 
that 50 percent -- v 

MS. MANN: I'd like to make a clarification here. 

What we were doing was analyzing the percent of 
the child's blood lead from -- due to lead in air across a wide 
range of air lead concentrations. 

The standard -- just -- you cannot pay attention 
to my numbers right after I say them. The standard is 1.5 
micrograms per meter cubed. At one microgram per meter cubed, 
50 percent of the child's blood lead is due to lead in air. 

Dr. Becker is correct that the ambient average 
exposure is quite low. But there is nothing preventing air lead 
exposures at the standard. 

So, you can go on. I just wanted to make that 
one correction. 

DR. BECKER: I would just say that the regulatory 
districts themselves, the Air Quality Management Districts if 
you're talking about emissions of lead into air, do have the 
authority to regulate that. They have the authority to regulate 
emissions, and to protect public health and the environment. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Their management policies are 
significantly derived from your assessments. 

DR. BECKER: And our assessment says we need to 
look at whole media, because the problem is at the community 
level at this point. 

SENATOR BRULTE: Let me just ask a question. 

You didn't include that originally? 


MS. MANN: We did. 

We did not include the model that Dr. Becker is 
referring to. We included two other approaches which both 
accounted for multiple pathways of lead. 

And actually, when we used the model that 
Dr. Becker is referring to, it didn't -- it didn't make any 
difference in our results. 

The other thing is that the model that U.S. EPA 
had developed, it was not actually for the purposes that we used 
it for in the document, but for people who actually had to 
implement control of lead in air in California, it would have 
been very expensive and maybe impossible to get all the 
information that they would really need to use that model 
properly. That was another reason why we had not originally 
included it. We tried to come up more practical approaches 
which did yield the same data. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: I've read the testimony of 
various people before Senator Sher's Committee on this and other 
topics . 

Are these things you're mentioning the basis for 
Dr. Glanz's comment -- 

MS. MANN: Yes. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: — that not only have there 
been completely unconscionable and unwarranted delay in the 
process, but the report had been rewritten. 

MS. M7\NN: Yes. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: And "things we had approved 
had been changed." He doesn't go into detail. 


Is that what he's talking about? 

MS. MANN: Yes, he's talking about all of the 
things that I have mentioned, yes, 

SENATOR BRULTE: What is the appropriate time 
frame for a study like that, or any study? 

MS. MANN: I wouldn't be able to say, but I think 
this holds the record. 

DR. BECKER: Senator, I think I would say that, 
you know, coming on as Deputy Director of Scientific Affairs, I 
got the study out the door. And we have a member of the science 
review panel here. Dr. Seiber, who can attest to the fact that 
the science review panel themselves reviewed the study, made 
some editorial changes, but approved it. 

Eventually it went before the Air Resources 
Board, and they identified the chemical as a toxic air 

The bottom line is, that through my efforts, we 
have a more objective, scientifically valid study of the health 
effects of lead. We provided a tool that communities can use to 
identify the important sources of lead exposure so that we can 
protect the public health of our children, whether it's lead 
from water, or lead from air, or lead from soils, they can 
figure it out. And we're willing and able to help develop and 
work with the air districts to do that. 

It takes a multi-media viewpoint in order to 
protect public health from lead exposure. That's what this new 
model did, and I'm quite proud of it. 

SENATOR BRULTE: You said that that took six 


years to get out? 

MS. MANN: Actually, it was almost out the door 
in January of '95. In February of 1995, Dr. Becker came on 
board/ and it was delayed another two years. 

But you're right, there were other delays to the 
document before Dr. Becker came on board. 

DR. BECKER: The document went before the science 
review panel, I believe, in September of '96. 

MS. MANN: October 31st of '96. 

DR. BECKER: I believe I had the assignment, it 
was given to me, to my recollection, around -- by my director 
at that time -- around May of '95. So, we had completed one 
draft, put that out for workshop, then a science review panel 
draft in October of '96, their review and approval of the 
report . 

I think that's a good track record, and reflects 
my commitment to sound science, and my commitment to using the 
best, most up-to-date scientific information and providing the 
tools that are needed to protect public health of California's 

Each community is somewhat different with respect 
to lead, but we have to have an integrated approach. 

SENATOR BRULTE: So, that's roughly, what, 16 
months, 17 months? 

DR. BECKER: That's correct, with two drafts, 
correct . 

SENATOR BRULTE: That would be normal. 

DR. BECKER: I think that's about right. 


SENATOR HUGHES: Then my question becomes, how 
many children's lives were lost? How many bodies were 
contaminated in the m'eantime? 

You're talking about time of the study, and I'm 
talking about time of life. And we are talking about the most 
vulnerable population, the very young children who don't have 
regular health care, who come from poor families, who come from 
deteriorated inner city places where there's more lead exposure. 

DR. BECKER: Senator, I agree with you. This is 
why we needed to include this new model which looked at exposure 
through paint chips. 

SENATOR HUGHES: We've known about paint chips 
for 20 years or more, that peeling paint. We knew that because 
a little kids used to eat it in the ghetto, and they probably 
still do that now. 

But that's not the kind of lead you're talking 
about. I congratulate you on your sophistication about the lead 
in the air, but everybody knows that lead is poisonous. And the 
people who are more exposed to it are the people in the ghettos 
and barrios that live in old buildings where the paint is 
peeling inside and outside. That's even if they have any 
outside paint left. 

DR. BECKER: Yes, ma'am, Senator. 

This model that we included that is 
state-of-the-art will allow for, and does provide for, the 
determination of the contribution of lead from that source. So, 
if that's the major source, then the focus for protecting those 
children for correcting that can be at that source. 


If it's not air lead that's a major source, but 
lead in paint, this model allows one to do that. It's a model 
that runs on a 486 or 586 computer. It's not that sophisticated 
at this point. 

But it is important to look at that, because we 
know from the standpoint of exposures, there are particular 
problems at the community level. Not at the ambient air level 
anymore within California, because lead has been banned from 
gasoline, but at the community level. 

And sources may be different from community to 
community. Some communities may have problems with lead in 

So we need the latest scientific model in order 
to evaluate that. Some communities may have problems with lead 
in water, and not air, and not soil, and not that. 

And this is what our risk assessment has 
provided. This is what the tools have provided. We've gone 
farther than that. We've made a commitment to work with the Air 
Resources Board and any local district or local health agency, 
to help them evaluate that in any way, shape, or form that we 
can in using this most appropriate risk assessment model. 

SENATOR BRULTE: Walk me through the time frame. 

When a report is completed at your level, it 
then, I assume, goes to a higher level within the chain? 

MS. MTUSTN: Yeah, it's an ongoing process. We 
complete a draft. It is released for public comment. 

SENATOR BRULTE: And some drafts would take a 
week, and others -- you said this was three years? 

MS. MANN: There were — 

SENATOR BRULTE: Six years minus 15 months is 
four-and-a-half years at your level? 

MS. MANN: There are publicly released drafts. 
I believe there were -- I think there were four or five publicly 
released drafts of the lead document. 

SENATOR BRULTE: At your level? 

MS. MANN: When you say at my level, you mean -- 
they were released -- 

SENATOR BRULTE: I have no knowledge of your 
operation. Mr. Becker suggests that he got the vehicle or the 
report on what month? 

DR. BECKER: I believe it was, in my 
recollection, is sometime around May of '95. 

SENATOR BRULTE: And it was out the door 16 
months later? 

DR. BECKER: As a final, yes. 

SENATOR BRULTE: So, it goes from your level 
where? It goes directly to him? 

MS. MANN: I actually -- I was one of I would say 
five people who worked on the document a lot. And one of those 
people was Dr. Becker. And we would work at meetings together, 
so I was a little bit confused by your terminology. 

SENATOR BRULTE: You're saying, I think, without 
saying directly, you're suggesting that he used bureaucratic 
opportunity to slow down the release of your report. 

My question is, what's normal timeframe for that? 
Once it leaves you and goes to him, if on average it then 


becomes published in three months, well, then, 16 or 17 months 
is clearly a delay. 

If, on the other hand, the average is 17 months, 
then 17 months doesn't seem like he slowed down the release of 
your report at all. 

MS. MANN: The document was about to be released. 
The scientific review panel would have approved it, they told us 
that later, in January of 1995. It was released in October of 
1996, so I see that as a delay. Actually it would be more like 
February or March of 1995 was when we were planning to get it 
out the door. 

And the process is that we publicly release a 
draft. Then we have a scientific review panel meeting based on 
that -- the results of that meeting. If they approve it, then 
it goes to the Air Resources Board at their next meeting. That 
would have been -- that process would have taken about six to 
eight months. 

SENATOR BRULTE: So help me here. 

DR. BECKER: Perhaps I can help you, Senator. 

SENATOR BRULTE: This was ready to be approved 
and released in January. It didn't even get on his desk until 

MS. MANN: I don't think that's right. I have a 
different recollection. 

DR. BECKER: I didn't join OEHHA until February 
of '95. I don't recall having the assignment from the Director 
until May. 

MS. M7VNN: I remember him working on it soon 


after he arrived, but I'm not going to say that I have that 
written down; I don't. 

SENATOR BRULTE: But I believe your testimony was 
that you talked to the scientific review panel that said they 
were going to approve it in January. 

MS. MANN: No, I would say it was almost out the 
door when he arrived in February. The scientific review panel 
expected to actually see it about a half a year before that, but 
we had also some delays from the Air Resources Board as well. 

It was -- the entire document was approved, 
except for one section. That section was removed, and the rest 
of the document was changed while Dr. Becker was Deputy 

SENATOR BRULTE: Do you think he is responsible 
for the six-month delay by the ARB? 

MS. MANN: I don't think he's responsible for the 
six-month delay by the ARB, but I think he is responsible for 
the majority of delay that happened after he became Deputy 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: What would be the reason for 

MS. MANN: I'm not sure. I don't know. 

CHAIRMAI^ LOCKYER: Is it just slowness in getting 
work done? 

MS. MANN: No, I think what I was trying to 
convey here is that he gave us lots of tasks. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Dr. Becker, it's obvious to me 
you're used to commanding people to do things, and they obey. 


You don't here. When you're called on, talk. 

DR. BECKER: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I understand. 

MS. MANN: I think I lost my train of thought. 
He gave us lots of tasks to complete, lots of 
extra analyses. The addition of this U.S. EPA model, which we 
incorporated. Then, when all of that was done, that took us to 
the mid to the end of summer of '96. He demanded that we -- or 
it'd be more like the beginning of the summer of '96. The 
document now out of date, and he asked that we update it. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: When you said there wasn't any 
different conclusion brought by the expanded modeling, what did 
you mean by that? 

MS. MANN: Well, we look at the impact of lead in 
air on a few health outcomes that we chose to look at in the 
document because we figured they had the most public health 

It didn't change the health effects that appeared 
to exist from lead in air. 

The way that we used that model, the way that we 
used the other two methods was, we had to make a connection 
between levels of lead in air and what happened in the child's 
blood. And the reason that we needed to do was, all the health 
literature looks at how levels of lead in a child's blood 
relates to certain health outcomes. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Isn't it true that the work 
Dr. Becker wanted was more comprehensive? 

MS. MANN: I wouldn't say that it was more 
comprehensive, no. 


CHAIRM7VN LOCKYER: At least his contention seems 
to be that it's useful to know what is the source: air, paint. 

MS. MANN: It doesn't actually tell you that, but 
it does require that you have that -- it does require that you 
know what average paint lead levels are, average soil lead 
levels are. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: That's what the model does? 

MS. MANN: That's what it requires. So, you need 
to put in that information to use the model well, and that is 
not the kind of information that most communities have. 

So, we came up with other methods which assumed 
that, for example, that amount of exposure to lead in paint was 
constant over time, which makes sense, and that the amount of 
lead in water was constant over time, which also makes sense 
because the major source of that is lead solder and lead 
connections in piping from water companies. 

So then, the thing that varies is lead in air. 
So, it gets at the same issue. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Anything further on this 
particular study? 

DR. BECKER: I would just answer, Mr. Chairman, 
that yes, indeed, it was indeed more comprehensive. We clearly 
have problems in California in certain communities with children 
who have excessive exposures to lead. This is what our study 
shows. Somewhere around percent of the children in California 
exceed the level of concern. What it showed. Somewhere around 
10 percent of the children in California exceed the level of 


What it showed is that, no matter how you looked 
at it, whichever model, and this made it more comprehensive, 
that about 10 percent of the kids exceeded the blood lead level 
of concern. 

Now, where is the lead coming from if it's not 
coming from lead being emitted from automobiles anymore because 
we don't have lead in gasoline. Where is it coming from. 

In particular communities, it could come from 
particular sources. In trying to manage those sources, and this 
is where protection of public health comes in, you have to 
understand what the component or what the integral amount is 
from each source. Is it coming from soil? 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: I understand. 

So, your contention is that because of that 
reworking and expansion of the scope of the project, those 
additional sources became better understood and better measured 
than they were in the original work product? 

DR. BECKER: I think what we've said is, we have 
pushed the risk managers to look beyond their single medium of 
exposure. The world is more complicated than just looking up in 
the air. We all know that what goes up, comes down. That's 

But what goes on the wall as lead paint can also 
chip off. What goes into the soil — 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: The result, though, from the 
more comprehensive work a better understanding of those 
different — 

DR. BECKER: Components, and then ultimately, 


hopefully, a better understanding of what are the effects in 
each individual community, and what are most effective steps 
that can be taken to limit exposures to protect the health of 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: You think those things were a 
product of the study that you directed, contrasted with what 
would have been a more limited work product as originally 

DR. BECKER: Yes, I would agree, yes. 

SENATOR BRULTE: That's been implemented, or the 
study has been acted upon by the appropriate -- 

DR. BECKER: Correct. The science review panel 
reviewed the study and approved it. It went to the Air 
Resources Board. They reviewed the study and identified lead as 
a toxic air contaminant. 

SENATOR BRULTE: You started this six years ago, 
and part of the delay you say Mr. Becker is responsible for is 
to updating it because the data was stale? 

MS. MANN: By the time that we had done all of 
these additional analyses and added the model, it was not — it 
was updated as of -- we had had current information as of the 
beginning of '95. But by the time it was October, it looked 
like it was going to be the end of October that the document was 
sent out . We needed to update the document because the 
citations were old. 

But there was no new evidence that changed any of 
our conclusions. It was just more a matter of making the 
document current, because now it's several years old. 


SENATOR BRULTE: I want to be clear on this, 
because you're here testifying against a distinguished public 
servant . 

You suggest on the record that part of the 
so-called delay was to make sure that stale data wasn't in the 
report. Is that improper or is that proper? 

MS. MANN: It wouldn't had been necessary had all 
of these other delays not taken place. But once we were at that 
point, I think it was proper to update the document. 

I guess my point was, it would have been 
unnecessary had these other delays not occurred. 

SENATOR HUGHES: But are you saying that you did 
not find any new data? 

MS. MANN: Yes, we did not find any new data, any 
changed information. And we knew that, because we actually had 
been reviewing the literature all along as part of our duty. 

SENATOR HUGHES: Dr. Becker, how often did you 
meet with the lead industry officials — 

DR. BECKER: I don't -- 

SENATOR HUGHES: -- to discuss the things that 
you suspected, to discuss the information that had originally 
been found? Have you ever met with the lead industry? 

DR. BECKER: We serve as consultants to the Air 
Resources Board in this matter and in all matters related to 
toxic -- 

SENATOR HUGHES: You didn't answer my question. 

DR. BECKER: — air contaminants. 

I was going to try and explain that. Senator 



I have met with representatives of the lead 
industry at the request of the Air Resources Board, but with our 
staff scientists. 

SENATOR HUGHES: How frequently -- 

DR. BECKER: I believe Ms. Mann -- we provided 
that information to Senator Sher. I'll be glad to provide that 
information to you as well. 

SENATOR HUGHES: Is it that complicated? I mean, 
you met with them once, you met with them five times? Within 
the past 16 months, how frequently? 

DR. BECKER: I only recall meeting with them once 
or twice, but always with our -- as Deputy Director, not as 
Director, and always with our scientists there to discuss the 
scientific and technical issues. 

SENATOR HUGHES: So, you have met with the 
industry over a period of time while they're cranking out the 
new non-new-information? 

DR. BECKER: The Air Resources Board has met on a 
number of occasions and requested that our staff scientists 
participate and discuss scientific issues with their scientific 
experts as well. That is the information that we have provided, 
and we'll be glad to get you a copy of that. 

SENATOR HUGHES: But you did not yourself 
initiate any meetings with people from the lead industry based 
on the new non-new-findings? 

DR. BECKER: I did not initiate any meetings at 
all with the lead industry for any reason whatsoever that I can 


recall . 

I can tell you this, that certainly this is not, 
and I would not classify it as not-new-findings. This is new 
scientific information, and new tools that can help the risk 
managers really prevent public health disease from occurring in 
our children. It's very important to understand that. 

SENATOR HUGHES: Do you conclude that the 
children who were most affected by lead contamination, be it in 
the air, be it in the soil, or what have you, are poor, inner 
city children who are economically deprived, who live in 
economically deprived environments? 

DR. BECKER: The conclusion, I think, is 
contained in our document very similar to what you've stated 
there, yes, ma'am, that there is a difference in terms of the 
level of children based on ethnicity in terms of their blood 
lead levels, and it probably does relate to housing, perhaps, 
differences . 

SENATOR HUGHES: And the populations that would 
occupy this housing would be from what the young lady described 
as the sensitive population? Small children and more small 
children in crowded conditions would be the subjects of this 

DR. BECKER: Yes, in any health risk assessment 
that we do, including lead, we look at not only the normal 
population, but any sensitive subpopulation. With lead, because 
children's nervous systems are developing, and because they 
absorb lead more readily than adults, they are the most 
sensitive population for the narrow toxicity of lead. That's 


been known for some time, and we are very concerned about that. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: So, you were able to ask 
ethnicity questions with respect to this study? 

DR. BECKER: We did not. We used published 
literature in this regard. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Did they include it? 

DR. BECKER: Yes, they did. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Ms. Mann, I want to make sure 
you've concluded, or if you had other things that you want to 
tell us. 

MS. MANN: I did, but I actually want -- there's 
one other things that I want to read, tell you. 

There's other things on lead, but I think we've 
done that to death a little bit. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: There's going to be a chance 
for supplementary oral and written comment. 

It's obvious to me that we've been close to three 
hours, and it's going to take a lot more time to get through the 
testimony. So, we're about to stop. I think you're sort of the 
wrap-up for this segment, and then we'll go on to others when we 
resume next time. 

MS. MANN: I just want to say, because of all the 
things that we've discussed, some of which Kristen mentioned, 
and some of which I mentioned, there was quite a bit of 
frustration from the staff. 

And Dr. Becker has instituted an open-door 
policy. Each week, staff are invited to a brown-bag lunch, 
which is led by Dr. Becker, or another member of OEHHA 


management. Unfortunately, although the door is open, the 
hostile, intimidating atmosphere does not encourage frank and 
open discussion. 

Also, Dr. Becker largely ignores the advice that 
he solicits from staff. And in fact, he's gone further than 
ignoring input; he's discredited his own technical staff 
outsiders. On several occasions. Dr. Becker has stated that his 
department has little ability to conduct epidemiological 
studies. For example, in defending his decision to cancel the 
investigation in Lompoc, Dr. Becker stated that OEHHA lacked 
epidemiologic expertise to do such an investigation. 

I worked for the Air Pollution Epidemiology Unit 
in OEHHA. My former supervisor is an internationally known air 
pollution epidemiologist. Yet, when OEHHA was given an Air 
Resources Board-funded air pollution epidemiology study to 
review. Dr. Becker sent the report to an epidemiologist in the 
Department of Health Services, along with a letter explaining 
that we didn't have anyone proficient in air pollution 
epidemiology to review it. 

Dr. Becker does not trust the staff of OEHHA 
because his agenda is contrary to the staff's desire to conduct 
science in the interest of public health. Dr. Becker's failure 
to trust his staff has been a particularly lethal flaw for a 
high executive in our organization. 

In OEHHA, the scientists are specialized in the 
areas of cancer, reproduction, risk assessment, regulatory 
matters, pesticides, air pollution, ecological effects, and 
modeling, to name just a few. This diverse combination of 


talent is part of the reason why OEHHA is capable of scientific 
excellence as shown by our reputation. 

It isn't realistic to expect OEHHA' s Director to 
be an expert in each of these areas, but that is why trust in 
and reliance on staff expertise so critical. 

Dr. Becker's agenda is not compatible with the 
mandate of OEHHA. And it is vital that the people of the State 
of California have an objective, scientific evaluation of 
hazards to public health and the environment. 

I ask you to take a first step in removing the 
politics from the science. I ask you to deny Dr. Becker's 
confirmation as Director of the Office of Environmental Health 
Hazard Assessment. 


FROM THE AUDIENCE: Were you going to wrap up? 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: I was hoping to, unless 
there's some -- 

FROM THE AUDIENCE: I was just going to ask, 
because I have traveled 420 miles. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: I was going to ask if there's 
someone whose schedule is impacted in a way that would make it 
impossible to submit either written commentary or be with us at 
some future time. 

DR. BECKER: We have, please, if you would, 
Mr. Chairman, Dr. Jim Seiber, who has traveled a great distance 
as well. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Let's have both of you try to 
summarize, if you can. Or point us in the right direction for 


our subsequent discussions. 

DR. BECKER: Dr. Seiber, please. 

DR. SEIBER: Senator Lockyer and Members of the 
Committee, thank you for your time. My name is James Seiber. 
I'm Director of the Center for Environmental Sciences and 
Engineering at the University of Nevada, Reno, and also 
Professor Emeritus at UC Davis. 

And I'd like to provide a positive perspective on 
Dr. Becker's confirmation through a quick status report on the 
Risk Assessment Advisory Committee, and of the participation of 
OEHHA and Dr. Becker in that process. 

I chaired the RTU^C Committee, Risk Assessment 
Advisory Committee, which, as you may know, was mandated by SB 
1082. And its purpose was to provide an external scientific 
peer review of the risk assessment practices of Cal-EPA. 

The Committee was convened in 1995. It consisted 
of 34 scientists from a variety of organizations and a variety 
of backgrounds. It took place largely in 10 public meetings, 
all of which were noticed and open for public comment. Many 
members of the public provided that testimony. 

And it culminated in about a 200-page report, 
called "The Review of the California EPA's Risk Assessment 
Practices, Policies and Guidelines." 

CHAIRM7USI LOCKYER: We were told earlier by one of 
the supporting witnesses that they thought it was a constructive 
series of recommendations, and that Dr. Becker had integrated 
most of them into the practices and policies of the Department. 

Is that your understanding? 


DR. SEIBER: Well, absolutely. Dr. Becker 
assisted the Committee in terms of clarifying the charge, 
providing information. Attended most of the meetings, and in 
fact/ allowed us to complete the process in what almost has to 
be a world record time of about 12 or 14 months, given the 
number of people and the number of public meetings. 

And certainly, I ' d be happy to continue on. The 
Committee found that Cal-EPA's risk assessment, as many of you 
probably know, is a leading — leading operation in the United 
States. It's based upon sound science consistently applied 
across boards and departments, and in general harmony with the 
practices of Federal EPA and the National Academy of Sciences. 

The Committee concluded that Cal-EPA's risk 
assessment products are of good quality from the perspective of 
scientific credibility and professional practice, and that the 
professional staffs of Cal-EPA that are involved in risk 
assessment, mostly at OEHHA, about 100-plus strong, are among 
the leaders in the field of risk assessment, and clearly very 
dedicated to their professions. 

The Committee made several recommendations -- 


Dr. SEIBER: — about 140 total. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: When was it released? 

DR. SEIBER: When was it released? October, 
1996. And I think the first meeting was in May or June of 1995, 
Senator. And of course, there's public review -- 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: A year's work or so. 

DR. SEIBER: — as part of the process. 


Among the 140 recoitunendations/ 11 general 
recommendations were made. Peer review, for example, was 
emphasized as a primary way to ensure that good science be 
incorporated in the risk assessment products of Cal-EPA. 

The Committee also recommended greater efforts 
toward coordination and harmonization with federal counterparts, 
and Dr. Becker mentioned multi-media exposure, which is 
definitely the way toxicology is going now and requires very 
close collaboration with federal counterparts. 

Several years ago, I think we could say that 
Federal EPA lagged significantly behind California's agencies in 
areas such as air toxics and pesticide regulation. The gap has 
closed considerably; harmonization is very' much needed. And 
this is an effort that the Committee recommended for 
improvement . 

The Committee pointed out that risk assessment is 
a young and still evolving field. I'm not sure how many of you 
realize that the federal document that we use for guidance in 
risk assessment was just issued in 1983. So, we've got about a 
13-year or 14-year experience with this science. 

It's often a contentious field, and it requires 
strong leadership in order to make the kind of adjustments that 
are recommended in the Committee's report. 

Continuous review and improvement of the type 
that was mentioned in connection with the lead document to 
reflect the latest scientific thinking and methodologies, for 
example, are very important. 

The Committee also recommended that risk 


assessors, risk managers, and the affected public and private 
organizations be brought in together early in risk assessment 
and discussion. And this is a fairly new proposal. So, once 
again, having leadership to make those kind of adjustments, I 
think, is critical for the future of risk assessment. 

Now, as a follow-up to the RAAC report. Governor 
Wilson signed an Executive Order that all Cal-EPA boards and 
departments develop implementation plans. Dr. Becker is leading 
that effort. He's asked on the -- he's asked the RAAC core 
committee to assist him in that, and we've had two meetings 
already, one of which was a public meeting. And I can say that, 
in general, the RAAC core committee members were quite impressed 
with the progress toward implementing the RAAC recommendations, 
which Dr. Becker and the staffs of OEHHA and the Cal-EPA boards 
and departments have presented. 

The process, in other words, is moving forward, 
and communication appears to be quite good. 

In summary, the Risk Assessment Advisory 
Committee was a successful process, producing in just over a 
year a consensus template for improving risk assessment in the 
State of California in the future. 

I'd like to emphasize the important contributions 
made by the OEHHA leadership and staff to the RAAC process, 
including an extraordinary commitment of time and effort. From 
the evidence I've seen, the commitment has carried through to 
the implementation phase, which is now occurring under Dr. 
Becker's leadership. 

Thank you very much. 


SENATOR LEWIS: Thank you very much. 
Senator Ayala. 

SENATOR AYALA: I just want to make an 

How can you say that Cal-EPA is the leading 
agency in the country when they have implementation of policies 
like the infamous records retention policy? How can that be 
considered leaders in the area of our environment? 

DR. SEIBER: I was speaking toward the practice 
of risk assessment, Senator. I think in that regard, Cal-EPA 
can -- is second to none, including Federal EPA, in terms of 
expertise and the ability to produce documents that are useful 
and helpful in safeguarding public health. 

SENATOR AYALA: It's just my opinion that if they 
implement such policies as the records retention policy, they're 
not all that good, in my opinion. 

DR. SEIBER: Senator, the record retention policy 
was kind of an internal thing which, of course, I know very 
little about and can't comment on. 

SENATOR LEWIS: Thank you very much. 

DR. BECKER: Mr. Vice Chairman, before we turn it 
over, I have one other witness that I think is leaving on 
vacation and may not be able to — she will be very brief after 
Mr. Raugh, please. 


State your name, please. 

MR. RAUGH: My name is George Raugh. I'm the 
President and the co-founder of Volunteers for a Healthy Valley, 


which is a citizens health organization in Lompoc, California. 

We have been organized there for about five 
years. We have significant health problems in Lompoc, and we 
believe it's because we're living down wind of massive pesticide 
applications . 

I was also appointed several years ago by the 
Department of Pesticide Regulation to serve on the Ag. Urban 
Interface Task Force. I was one of two community members 
appointed to try to deal with these issues. 

This is an issue that, according to Paul 
Gosselin, with the Department of Pesticide Regulation, is a 
growing issue, an issue of deep concern throughout California as 
more and more people are moving into areas next to a lot of 
intensive spraying. 

For the last five-and-a-half years, we've been 
working on this issue. For last two years, however, we have 
been dumped into the swamp, into a black hole of nothingness. 
And I'm sorry to say that there is only one man responsible for 
the last two years of delay in which nothing has been done in 
our community except the suffering that continues. The 
regulators are all waiting. The Department of Pesticide 
Regulation is waiting. Everyone is waiting for two years on 
Mr. Becker. 

I want to go briefly into the history -- and I'll 
make it brief -- of OEHHA coming into our community. 

My first contact with Mr. Becker was in I believe 
it was March or thereabouts of 1995. It was a conference call 
in which he guaranteed me that OEHHA was coming to our community 


and they were going to give us independence and expertise. I 
heard these words three times, and I thought, "me thinks he 
protests too much." Independence, expertise. Independence, 
expertise. That's what we were guaranteed. 

One month later, in April, '95, we held a large 
public meeting. And I want you to understand that hundreds come 
to the meetings in Lompoc. It's a small town. There is a great 
concern there. 

The OEHHA team came down. Dr. Becker headed this 
thing up from the get-go. I don't care if he was Deputy 
Director, Director, Schmarector, whatever, he was head of this 
project . 

In April, '95, he spoke to our community. He 
guaranteed us of all good intentions that OEHHA had in examining 
this problem. They were going to look at our health problem. 
It was only anecdotal. It was only people complaining. Let's 
find out. 

My wife, among many others, came up to me 
afterwards and said, "That man sounds sincere." After waiting 
for years and nothing happening, she and others felt very 
hopeful. We'll see, I thought. 

In July of '95, it's only few months later, at 
OEHHA' s request, I set up a number of interviews with Lompoc 
residents, about 15 or 20 people, who feel that their illnesses, 
that only occurred after moving to town, were primarily from the 
pesticides, or at least certainly they had illnesses that could 
not be accounted for. 

An OEHHA team came down, all scientists. None of 


them are here. Dr. Becker did not come down. We had an 
epidemiologist, a medical doctor, and two toxicologists; the 
PETS team, they're called. Pesticide Environmental Toxics 
Section, under Dr. Anna Fan. 

They came down to Lompoc, and they spent two full 
days interviewing people. They heard many stories. Mostly they 
heard about respiratory illnesses, and they also heard about 
neurological problems. 

They left our community, and I remember that 
Dr. Holtzer, the medical doctor on the team, was obviously 
skeptical. He let us know he had heard these problems in other 
communities. People have respiratory and neurological problems 
in many communities. 

Approximately a month or two later, after 
examining hospital discharge data -- this is quantifiable, hard 
data. It's on the record. There's nothing you can do either 
way to change it; it's there -- he found, working with others in 
OEHHA, that we had astronomical rates of asthma and bronchitis, 
just as we had been claiming. 

And I'm talking about hospitalized. If you know 
people with asthma or bronchitis, they never go to the hospital. 
You'd have to be pretty ill before you're admitted with that 
cause. If you're admitted to the emergency room, it's still not 
in the hospital data. You have to be admitted into the hospital 

Dr. Holtzer flipped, I guess is the word we could 
use. He couldn't believe it. He became, in his words later on, 
a convert. He was skeptical. He's a very conservative 


physician scientist. He couldn't believe what he saw in the 
data. Alarm bells went off. 

He ran and took the data to this man sitting next 
to me, after they had worked up some of the computer modeling in 
order to compare it to nearby communities. He brought this data 
to the man sitting next to me, and he was told not to deal with 
it. He was essentially told to put it away. He was told not to 
talk to anybody about it. He did not talk to our public health 

I had been calling, working with OEHHA scientists 
myself on this issue, and they refused my phone calls. They 
referred me to Dr. Becker, who referred me back to Dr. Anna Fan, 
who referred me back to Dr. Becker. 

That was it. The black hole had begun. That was 
in August, '95, according to a letter that Senator O'Connell 
wrote after talking to Dr. Holtzer, that the essential work-up 
of this famous Lompoc hospital discharge study was completed. 
It is sitting here in Sacramento on a spreadsheet. 

The evidence is, we have double the 
asthma-bronchitis of all surrounding communities. 

Now, did that get into this so-called study, that 
was apparently authored, but not signed by anyone, but 
apparently authored by Dr. Becker and his underling. 
Dr. Siegel. 

Dr. Holtzer refers to it in his letters as the 
Siegel -- or the Becker-Siegel document. There's a cover letter 
signed by Becker, but that's it. It's not signed. 

As you may well know, the scientists those PETS 



scientists who came to Lompoc, who talked to us, who worked on 
this, they did not sign it, and they refused to sign it, and 
they refused to come to the public meeting, and they wouldn't 
defend it. 

Another scientist from OEHHA who was not working 
on the study but is quite conversant with it. Dr. Robert Howd, 
has a letter, which I have -- he wrote a letter which I have -- 
saying, do not expect scientists to defend this study; they 
would not. 

In here there is no word about the these findings 
of respiratory -- you know, I am still incredulous. If anybody 
that cared at all about public health were at the head of any 
agency and saw this data, alarm bells would be ringing. They 
would be calling the staff in. Come on, everybody. They would 
call in DHS . Let's look at this. Double asthma-bronchitis, 
what's going on here? 

Instead, it was muzzled and put away. Why? I 
don ' t know why . 

This black hole, by the way, is continuing to 
this day. Now, as you've heard, we've had to go through this 
Study Number Two. They had to write a protocol. 

I'm not a scientist. You Senators are not 
scientists, I'm sure. But if I put a few jars with marbles in 
front of you, red and blue marbles, you'd be able to count them, 
just as I would. 

That's essentially what this study is, it's 
counting the Marbles. How many asthmas in this community? How 
many in that community? Doesn't take a protocol, as Dr. Mann 


has just testified. She talked about it as though you might as 
well be tying your shoes as far as needing a protocol goes here. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: You just gave her a promotion, 
I think. She hasn't quite finished -- 

MR. RAUGH: Not quite a doctor, well, she'll make 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: But she's past the tying your 
shoes threshold, so that's okay, whatever that is. 

MR. RAUGH: By the way, the only reason that I 
can figure that this thing was even reinstituted was the 
pressure, thank you, to doctor -- excuse me, I just promoted him 
-- to Senator O'Connell. His office gave a scathing review of 
this so-called Becker-Siegel study. 

I have here four memorandums from the Department 
of Health Services, all critical and negative, all questioning 
where does he get his conclusions from, when none of the data 
lead up to them? It's just incomprehensible. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: We may not have those 
documents for our records, so if you'll make copies? 

MR. RAUGH: Sure, I'll be happy to. I would have 
brought some. 

These were the peer reviews. Our group asked 
that they be peer reviewed when the study came out. These are 
four very fine scientists that work for the State of California 
that were all negative. 

By the way, I even failed to mention, we have a 
36 percent increase over the average in lung cancer in Lompoc. 
That was not discovered by OEHHA. That was discovered by Debra 



GilliS/ one of the peer reviewers. 

OEHHA had somehow managed to cook the data by 
putting in an area that was not exposed, and naturally that 
dilutes the data. I don't want to get too technical. We've had 
enough science here today, nor am I a scientist. But 
essentially, it's pretty obvious. You put in an unexposed 
population. You add them to the exposed, and then you look at 
it, and you say, no problem. 

When Dr. Gillis looked at the people in the 
Lompoc Valley, down where the exposure is, she found that, 
indeed, we have a very high rate of lung cancer. And there are 
other cancers that are higher, but not, quote, statistically 
significant. That is -- 

SENATOR AYALA: What do you mean by exposure? 
From what? 

MR. RAUGH: That's an excellent question. 

We live in a very narrow, long, valley that only 
opens to the ocean, so that we live in sort of a bowl. It's 

SENATOR AYALA: No contiguous cities? 

MR. RAUGH: No. Lompoc sits all alone in this 
valley. It's a town of 40,000. 

SENATOR AYALA: Exposed to what? 

MR. RAUGH: Upwind of us, there are about five 
miles of fields that are intensively cultivated with vegetables. 
And they spray there, according to records from the Department 
of Health Services and Department of Pesticide Regulation, they 
spray five to ten -- no, excuse me -- one to two tons of 


pesticides a week, 50 or 90 tons a year, year around, in this 

It's something fairly new there. It's something 
that's increasing around the state. 

OEHHA began looking here in Lompoc. It's the 
first kind of large investigation they've done. It's the first 
investigation, other than MacFarland, that I know about that's 
really been done on this kind of exposure. 

SENATOR AYALA: On that exposure issue, Lompoc 
was exposed to it? What other areas are included? 

MR. RAUGH : Some of the other areas that were 
compared are exposed; others are not. 

SENATOR AYALA: What are not in terms of cities? 

MR. RAUGH: They included San Luis County, areas 
there that would not have the same exposure. 

I'd like to add, these are excellent questions, 
Senator Ayala. But one of the points here was, they were not 
even asked to find out causation. This study was not intended 
to find out if pesticides, or anything, lead, you name it, were 
causing this. Cars. It could be anything. 

SENATOR AYALA: What's the population of your 

MR. RAUGH: Forty thousand. 

The first cut here was simply to find out were 
the residents actually talking about something real? 
Dr. Holtzer said he'd heard this from many communities, 
respiratory problems. So, the first cut here, as you might say 
was, is there a problem? 


This so-called study, the Becker so-called study 
here says there's no problem. Yet, he had this information. He 
told his scientists to bury it. 

I would never have known about this myself if 
Dr. Holtzer had not quit. As you know, he quit in disgust, 
largely over this, and also, as he told me later on, because he 
joined that agency to work on public health, and that's not what 
he was doing. 

This goes beyond, I might add, beyond 
conservative, or Republican, or anything like that. Dr. Holtzer 
is a conservative Republican, as he told me. And concluded that 
statement by saying, but public health is public health. 

Now we're told we're going to have to wait until 
October, '96 to get the results of this study. We've gone 
through our fancy-schmancy protocol. We're going to have the 
same study that we had that's sitting somewhere here in a box in 
OEHHA's offices in Sacramento. 

Our small citizens group, with the NRDC, we 
joined in a suit with them to get this information. Now the 
race is on, whether Study Number Two is going to come out before 
the courts release this information to us. 

But Dr. Holtzer, indeed, has already told us of 
these. He says there are 80 cases, and I'm reading his letter 
to Paul Gosselin of November 15, 80 cases of bronchitis-asthma 
excess over the year. He extrapolates and sets only 
hospitalizations that we may have 1600 excess cases in our small 
community of asthma-bronchitis. 

Dr. Becker, in his study here, tries to pass off 


the lung cancer as though it were just smoking. With no 
evidence whatsoever, apparently Lompoc has more smokers. 

In fact, when you look at the real evidence from 
the hospital study, there is a lower evidence of a lung disease 
called COPD, which is typically a lung disease that smokers get. 
We have a lower rate of that in our community. 

Why do we have such high lung cancer? Why do we 
have all this asthma-bronchitis? Why do we have all these other 
problems of headaches and neurological problems, tingling and 
numbness, so on? These weren't even addressed in this study. 

The other aspects of the study, and I can't go 
into it all here, the cancer and the birth defects, there simply 
is not enough data in a small community like this to even 
support a study like that. There was no reason to even do it, 
unless, as it turned out, we came up with startlingly high 
numbers/ which they did in the lung cancer. 

The study is mish-mosh. I question the veracity 
of Dr. Becker. I question why we have to wait for two years. 

Senator Hughes, you talked about people waiting. 
We are waiting two years. Nothing. 

The Department of Pesticide Regulation is sitting 
in their offices, twiddling their thumbs, waiting for this study 
to come out. 

That concludes my testimony. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Thank you, sir. 

DR. BECKER: May I respond just very, very 
briefly? I'll promise. Senator, I know it's getting very late, 
so I'll just keep it very brief. 


With respect to the issue about the hospital 
discharge data, I did receive a draft protocol from our staff to 
look at the hospital discharge data. And that protocol 
developed by our staff epidemiologist indicated that 
scientifically meaningful results could not be obtained from 
that study. 

Based upon that conclusion, why do a study? It's 
like building a house. If you have a protocol -- I mean, if you 
go out and buy wood, and just start pounding nails in it, the 
house will fall down. 

The protocol is meant to be like the blueprints 
of the house. If the blueprint holds up to peer review, then 
you go ahead and build the house. If it doesn't hold up to peer 
review, you don't. You send it back to the engineer. 

Well, that's why we stopped that study, because 
it did not, by admission of our own scientists, would not yield 
scientifically meaningful results. 

With respect to -- 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Did you ever find a study that 
in your view tilted too much toward the conclusion that there 
wasn't a health hazard, that you insisted somebody rework? Or 
do you only rework the ones that say there is a public health 

DR. BECKER: We try to make sure that there is 
balance and objectivity -- 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Have you ever found one? 

DR. BECKER: Senator, please, if you would permit 
me to answer that. 


CHAIFO^dAN LOCKYER: I want the answer to the 

DR. BECKER: From the standpoint of objectivity, 
we try to make sure that all of our studies are objective. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Did you ever find one that 
your preliminary evaluation or assessment was, it erred on the 
side of thinking there was not a public health problem, and you 
said, "I want some more work done here"? 

DR. BECKER: Simply, in this case, we said with 
this case, we need more work done to make sure that we have — 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Have you ever found one — 

DR. BECKER: -- a solid protocol. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: -- that you thought the 
opposite of? One in your experience in this Department or your 
prior job? 

DR. BECKER: I think with lead, the issue was 
clear. In the lead health risk assessment — 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: That's the one you thought 
that their conclusion was too tilted toward public health 

DR. BECKER: I think from the standpoint of 
looking at public health concerns from the community level, we 
needed to look at exposures across all -- 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: So, your answer is, no, you 
have never found scientific work that you rejected because it 
claimed there wasn't a public health problem? 

DR. BECKER: No, I don't think that's my answer, 


CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: That's the answer I heard from 

DR. BECKER: What I answered was that in lead/ I 
think, the case was clear. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: You said, go back and include 
new modeling. 

DR. BECKER: We needed to look at those 
exposures. And that was clearly a case where children are 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: And you deleted the conclusion 
of the scientific panel, the preliminary one, that there was a 
standard, and that it was significantly and frequently violated 
for young kids. 

DR. BECKER: I don't believe I deleted that, no. 

CHAIRM/y^ LOCKYER: Yes, you did. And what was 
substituted was a very complex matrix that made it difficult to 
know where the thresholds of public health were crossed. 

Now, let's not debate the lead. My question is, 
have you ever had scientific studies presented to you, and you 
said, "You're not sufficiently concerned here about public 
health risks. I want new work done." 

Have you ever done that one time? 

DR. BECKER: I'm sure that I have. Senator. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Next time we have you here, 
why don't you bring me the documents that show? 

DR. BECKER: I ' d be glad to. 

MR. RAUGH: Could I simply ask why a protocol is 
needed? Why it is not meaningful when a community has double 


the asthma, bronchitis and lung cancer to boot? Do we dismiss 
that? Do we throw it into a black hole? 

Is that sound science? Or is that a lot of sound 
to go along with your science? 


Make your comment, that's fair. 

DR. BECKER: Thank you. 

One other thing with respect to Dr. Holtzer. He 
was not told not to communicate with the community health 
officer. He was told exactly the opposite. His supervisor was 
told to make sure that he communicate that to Dr. Holtzer, and 
that communication occur. 

The supervisor has admitted that he was told to 
communicate that to Dr. Holtzer, and the supervisor has accepted 
responsibility for not doing that. 

The same OEHHA scientists that you, Mr. Raugh, 
criticized for not picking up on some of the lung cancer 
problems were the ones who were doing the hospital discharge 
data. That's why it's important to have good protocol, and 
that's why it's important to have external scientific peer 
review, to make sure that we have scientifically meaningful 

Scientists can make mistakes, too. It's 
important to have other scientists look at their work. 

MR. RAUGH: Protocols don't obviate mistakes. 

DR. BECKER: I never told scientists to bury the 
information at all. Scientists themselves, because it was 
preliminary information, felt uncomfortable about how to include 


this information in this draft report. 

I want to let you all know that this is a draft 
report that we released for public review, just like Mr. Raugh 
has given us, and public comment, and also scientific comment, 
to make sure that we can get it on the mark when we do our final 
analysis . 

This is part of the scientific process. This is 
what we're following. 

I'm glad and pleased to say that we're back on 
track with respect to analysis of the hospital discharge data. 
We have had 10 independent, external scientific peer reviewers 
look at the protocol, make some suggestions. We've modified it. 
We've held a community meeting down in Lompoc. And most 
community members support that study. That study's under way, 
and we intend to conduct that study and yield scientifically 
meaningful results, which will provide answers to Mr. Raugh and 
other people's questions in that community. 

It's important to have scientifically meaningful 
results so that it can be interpreted and acted upon. 

I would like to close with one other thing. In 
the interim, a scientific study has been conducted by Dr. John 
Peters of the University of Southern California. He looked at 
school children at 12 communities throughout Southern 
California. Lompoc is one of the communities that he looked at. 
And this is what he found, and this was a scientific study 
funded by the Air Resources Board. 

He found that the prevalence rates in Lompoc 
among the 12 communities, Lompoc had the lowest prevalence rate 


of asthma in school children; the third lowest rate, cough and 
other chest problems; and was in the middle for wheeze and 
bronchitis . 

Lompoc was only elevated -- this is what Dr. John 
Peters of USC found -- was only elevated among the other 
communities for pneumonia, which may be of bacterial or viral 
origin. It was primarily in seventh graders, which also had a 
high prevalence of bronchitis and coughs. 

Another community of interest is Santa Maria, 
which is very close to Lompoc that was studied. It has similar 
air quality, according to this study, to Lompoc. In relation to 
Lompoc, Santa Maria had a much higher ranking and prevalence of 
asthma. It was the fourth highest out of twelve. Cough, the 
second highest; and chest problems, the highest. 

So, I think it's very important to look at these 
communities, and look at scientific studies carefully. This is 
what Dr. Peters' study says, that Lompoc is in the lower half or 
the lower third in rate of prevalence of these lung problems. 

Our hospital discharge data will help you and 
help our community members understand whether or not there is a 
risk. But Dr. Peters' study also an important and a 
scientifically valid study. He is well respected in the 
epidemiological field, and is a member of our Carcinogen 
Identification Committee, part of our Science Advisory Board. 


SENATOR AYALA: I'd just like to ask the doctor, 
are you suggesting that Lompoc has a lower rate of health 
problems than most cities in California? 


DR. BECKER: I'm not suggesting that. What I'm 
saying is that there's a study by Dr. John Peters of USC and 
other folks, funded by the ARB — partially funded by the ARB, 
as I understand it, maybe fully -- which indicates that among 12 
communities in Southern California, Lompoc had the lowest 
prevalence of asthma among school aged children in one of those 
12 communities, and the third lowest of cough and other chest 
problems, and was in the middle for wheeze and bronchitis among 
those 12 communities that were studied. 

MR. RAUGH: Senator Ayala, could I address that, 


MR. RAUGH: This another — perhaps this time 
it's inadvertent -- but it's another piece of the misinformation 
from Dr. Becker. 

I've talked, I've spent over an hour talking — 
first of all, the study has not been released publicly, but I 
did speak to one of the scientists at the ARB who has worked on 
or seen some of the data. 

The children, it is true that the children 
studied have lower rates than other communities, the study of 
Lompoc . 

However, I am aware of where they did the testing 
and what children they were testing. They were not the children 
-- if you remember when I explained — that lived down in the 
valley. They are children that live up on the mesa primarily, 
which is up, out of the pesticide exposure, and northwest winds 
sweep across from the ocean. There is no pollutants between 


them and the ocean. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: You're talking about the 
Lompoc control group? 

MR. RAUGH: Yes, for the USC study. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: That wasn't representative of 
the Lompoc? 

MR. RAUGH: That's true, and it was not aimed at 
that group at all. In fact, when that study began, there had 
been no controversy in the cominunity with regard to pesticides. 
It's apples and oranges, in other words. 

Mr. Becker wouldn't know that, and he shouldn't 
have brought it up without knowing it. It's always, always with 
him -- 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: We're going to have to 
conclude today. We won't go to a vote today. 

DR. BECKER: May I please, with your indulgence, 
it would be very short. One witness who will be leaving on 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: They can submit their comment 
in writing, I think, if they want to make further comments. 

DR. BECKER: Thank you. Senator. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: Let me just tell you what the 
ground rules are, Dr. Becker. 

This feels like it's only a good start in 
understanding this. A lot of that is because much of the 
dispute is technical and scientific, and it's hard for lay 
people to, perhaps, make some fair assessment of those 
contentions . 



I would only summarize by saying that for me, I 
don't see a smoking gun, but I see a lot of empty bullet 
casings. And I want to do some more work to try to get to the 
truth, and you'll have plenty of time to have additional 
witnesses, either oral or written. 

I would ask anyone else that's here, that because 
of our time problems, we have quite a bit of work to do still, 
that you consider submitting any comment in writing. If you've 
heard something today that you would agree or disagree with, 
please let Mr. Gordon, if you'll raise your hand. Alan Gordon 
is the member of the Senate Office of Research staff that 
collects opinions and commentaries. 

And we'll get back to at that a subsequent 

SENATOR BRULTE: So, what will occur the next 
time we convene? 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: I think we're going to hear 
more testimony. 

What I'm hoping will occur is that we can figure 
out how to sift through it and focus it better, because there 
was a lot of different kinds of materials today, that it would 
be useful, I think, if we -- 

DR. BECKER: Perhaps our staff can get together 
and try and help sort this out. I would be glad to volunteer 
our staff in that regard. 


DR. BECKER: One request, Mr. Chairman and fellow 
Senators. I do have a family problem that I need to leave 


tonight for. I would just ask that we not continue this next 

Monday, if that would be possible. 

CHAIRMAN LOCKYER: It won't be next week. We've 

got other hearings scheduled. It'll be a while. 

DR. BECKER: Thank you very much. 
[Thereupon. This portion of the 
Senate Rules Committee hearing was 
terminated at approximately 5:26 P.M.] 



I, EVELYN J. MIZAK, a Shorthand Reporter of the State 
of California, do hereby certify: 

That I am a disinterested person herein; that the 
foregoing transcript of the Senate Rules Committee hearing was 
reported verbatim in shorthand by me, Evelyn J. Mizak, and 
thereafter transcribed into typewriting. 

I further certify that I am not of counsel or 
attorney for any of the parties to said hearing, nor in any way 
interested in the outcome of said hearing. 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 
O^'^ day of ^ ^_J,^£^n^^<_^ , 1997 


Shorthand^ Reporter 

331 -R 

Additional copies of this publication may be purchased for $4.50 per copy 
(includes shipping and handling) plus current California sales tax. 

Senate Publications 

1020 N Street, Room B-53 

Sacramento, CA 95814 


Make checks payable to SENATE RULES COMMITTEE. 
Please include Stock Number 331 -R when ordering.